Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/23/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:28:33+00:00

Document:
Held: Under the provisions of the Civil Service Retirement Act whereby a deceased federal employee's legitimate children under 18 years of age qualify for survivors' benefits but "recognized natural" children under 18 may recover only if they "lived with the employee . . . in a regular parent-child relationship," a recognized natural child is entitled to survivors' benefits when the child has lived with the deceased employee in a "regular parent-child relationship," regardless of whether the child was living with the employee at the time of his death. This construction of the statutory provisions is fair and reasonable in light of the language, purpose, and history of the enactment and avoids a serious constitutional question under the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Even if the "lived with" requirement is assumed to serve as a device to thwart fraudulent claims of dependency or parentage or to promote efficient administration by facilitating the prompt identification of eligible annuitants, to construe the provision as applying only to illegitimate children living with the employee at the time of death would raise serious equal protection problems that this Court must seek to avoid by adopting a saving statutory construction not at odds with fundamental legislative purposes. Pp. 445 U. S. 26-34.
218 Ct.Cl. 705, 590 F.2d 343, affirmed.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 445 U. S. 34. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEWART, J., joined, post, p. 445 U. S. 36.
George Isaacson and the appellee Patricia Clark lived together from 1965 through 1971 without benefit of matrimony. They had two children, Shawn and Tricia Clark, born in 1968 and 1971, respectively, and the four lived together as a family. After the appellee and Isaacson separated, the appellee filed a state court action in Montana seeking a determination of the paternity of the children. In June, 1972, the Montana court issued a decree determining that Isaacson was the natural father of the children and ordering him to contribute to their support. Isaacson provided monthly support payments up to the time of his death in 1974.
children born out of wedlock only if they "lived with the employee . . . in a regular parent-child relationship." Such a classification based on illegitimacy is unconstitutional unless it bears "an evident and substantial relation to the particular . . . interests this statute is designed to serve." Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U. S. 259, 439 U. S. 268 (1978) (plurality opinion); see id. at 439 U. S. 279 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). See also Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 430 U. S. 767 (1977). [Footnote 3] The Government's asserted justification for the classification -- that it is an administratively convenient means of identifying children who actually were deprived of support by the employee's death -- is itself open to constitutional question, since the statute does not condition benefits to legitimate children on such a showing.
(opinion of BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ.); id. at 438 U. S. 281 (opinion of POWELL, J.); id. at 438 U. S. 411-412 (opinion of STEVENS, J.). Accordingly, we turn to the statute to determine whether resolution of the constitutional question is necessary to the disposition of this case.
Shawn and Tricia Clark were denied annuities on the ground that they did not meet the statutory requirement that they "lived with the employee . . . in a regular parent-child relationship." The appellee contended that her children did meet the requirement, because they had lived with the decedent as a family from their birth through 1971. If the appellee's construction of the statutory language is correct, the children are entitled to survivors' annuities and decision of the constitutional question is unnecessary. The Civil Service Commission, however, has construed the "lived with" language to require that the children be living with the employee at the time of the employee's death.
"an unmarried child, including a dependent stepchild or an adopted child, under the age of eighteen years, or such unmarried child who because of physical or mental disability is incapable of self-support."
"an unmarried child, including (1) an adopted child, and (2) a stepchild or recognized natural child who received more than one-half his support from and lived with the . . . employee in a regular parent-child relationship."
first time children born out of wedlock were explicitly included, but their eligibility was made subject both to the "lived with" requirement and to the dependency requirement originally applicable only to stepchildren.
The legislative history is devoid of any indication whether Congress intended that annuities could be recovered by all recognized natural children who had once lived with the employee in a familial relationship, or only by such children who were living with the employee at the time of death. Nor do the congressional materials illuminate the purpose of the "lived with" requirement. The Government defends the provision as a rational indicator of both dependency and parentage. An illegitimate child who lived with the natural parent, according to this view, is both more likely to have received support from the parent and more likely to be the true issue of that parent than is any illegitimate child who lived apart from the natural parent. It seems unlikely that Congress viewed the requirement as a means of ascertaining either dependency or parentage, however, since the statute also required the child to prove both that he had received more than one-half of his support from the deceased employee and that he was the employee's "recognized natural child." Those provisions speak directly to the concerns raised by the Government, and the additional requirement that the child must have lived with the parent would therefore be superfluous regardless of whether it mandated that the child must have lived with the parent at the time of the parent's death rather than at some other time.
of this case, however, that the classification is not narrowly tailored as a means of furthering either goal. As we recognized in Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U. S. 628, 417 U. S. 636 (1974), the prevention of fraud is a legitimate goal, but it does not necessarily follow "that the blanket and conclusive exclusion of [appellee's] subclass of illegitimates is reasonably related to the prevention of spurious claims." Thus, even if the "lived with" requirement is assumed to serve as a device to prevent fraud or to promote efficient administration, it raises serious equal protection problems that this Court must seek to avoid by adopting a saving statutory construction not at odds with fundamental legislative purposes.
"Stepchildren and natural children are eligible for benefits at present only when they have been dependent on the deceased parent and living with the parent in a regular parent-child relationship. The latter requirement should be retained; but, if it is fulfilled, the benefits should be paid as for any other child, without regard to the dependency requirement."
H.R. Doc. No. 402, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 41 (1966).
On January 1, 1979, the Civil Service Commission was abolished, and the Office of Personnel Management assumed primary responsibility for the civil service retirement program. See Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub.L. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111; Reorg.Plan No. 2 of 1978, 3 CFR 323 (1979). For convenience, throughout this opinion, we shall refer to the agency administering the retirement program as the Civil Service Commission.
By an order dated January 27, 1978, the Court of Claims held that the "lived with" requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 8341(a)(3)(A) applicable to illegitimate children violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court then resolved the issue of relief, and entered final judgment on November 6, 1978. The Government filed its notice of appeal on December 5, 1978.
(Emphasis added.) The appellee first contends that the Government failed to file a timely notice of appeal because it did not appeal the January 27, 1978, decision on the liability issue. Section 1252 would have allowed the Government to seek review of this interlocutory order declaring a federal statute unconstitutional, but its permissive language providing that any party "may appeal . . . from an interlocutory or final judgment" plainly did not require the Government to appeal before final judgment was entered. Cf. United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U. S. 709 (1963) (review of final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1255 entails review of any interlocutory decisions on liability); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. United States, 320 U. S. 1, 320 U. S. 47-48 (1943) (same); American Foreign S. S. Co. v. Matise, 423 U. S. 150 (1975) (same rule when jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1254); Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co., 261 U. S. 399, 261 U. S. 418 (1923) (same).
The appellee also argues that no appeal will lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1252 because the Court of Claims did not declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional. To the contrary, a determination that the "lived with" requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 8341(a)(3)(A) was unconstitutional was a necessary predicate to the relief the Court of Claims granted to the appellee's children, and this determination of unconstitutionality may be appealed under § 1252. McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U. S. 21, 421 U. S. 30 (1975); United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 362 U. S. 20 (1960). It is irrelevant that the Court of Claims reached this holding by relying on its earlier decision in Gentry v. United States, 212 Ct.Cl. 1, 546 F.2d 343 (1976), rehearing denied, 212 Ct.Cl. 27, 551 F.2d 852 (1977). An appeal under § 1252 lies for any federal court decision declaring an Act of Congress unconstitutional in a civil action in which the United States is a party, not just for the first such decision. Cf. Garment Workers v. Donnelly Garment Co., 304 U. S. 243, 304 U. S. 249 (1938).
The lower federal courts have uniformly held that the "lived with" requirement violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Gentry v. United States, supra; Jenkins v. U.S. Civil Service Comm'n, 460 F.Supp. 611 (DC 1978); Proctor v. United States, 448 F.Supp. 418 (DC 1977) (three-judge court); Tenny v. United States, 441 F.Supp. 224 (ED Mo.1977); Myers v. Commissioners of Civil Service Comm'n, Civ. No. 8682 (SD Ohio, Aug. 9, 1977).
See 45 U.S.C. § 231e(c)(1)(i) (Railroad Retirement Act benefits payable in certain circumstances to "the widow or widower of the deceased employee who was living with such employee at the time of such employee's death"); 42 U.S.C. § 416(e) (Social Security Act in part defines legally adopted child as a person who "was at the time of such individual's death living in such individual's household"); 42 U.S.C. § 416 (h)(3)(A) (ii) (Social Security Act's definition of qualified child is met in part when "such insured individual is shown . . . to be the father of the applicant and was living with or contributing to the support of the applicant at the time such insured individual became entitled to benefits or attained age 65, whichever first occurred").
See Visor v. United States, Civ. No. 9922(2) (ED Mo., Feb. 12, 1955) .
See S.Rep. No. 1187, 9th Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1966); The Federal Salary and Fringe Benefits Act of 1966: Hearings on H.R. 14122 before the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1966); Joint Annual Report of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and the Report of the Cabinet Committee on Federal Staff Retirement Systems, H.R.Doc. No. 402, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 41 (1966).
Two Committees of Congress, in passing on requests for legislation by the Civil Service Commission, have referred to the "lived with" requirement as a "living with" requirement. S.Rep. No. 92-527, p. 1 (1971); S.Rep. No. 1070, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1966). See also H.R.Rep. No. 92-811, p. 3 (1972); H.R.Rep. No. 33, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965). We read the Committees' statements as nothing more than acknowledgments of the Commission's interpretation of the requirement, which was made known to each Committee by letters from the Commission. S.Rep. No. 92-527, supra at 2-3; S.Rep. No. 1070, supra, at 3-4. In any event, the views of some Congressmen as to the construction of a statute adopted years before by another Congress have "very little, if any, significance.'" United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U. S. 157, 392 U. S. 170 (1968) (quoting Rainwater v. United States, 356 U. S. 590, 356 U. S. 593 (1958)).
The 1966 recommendation of the Cabinet Committee on Federal Staff Retirement Systems referred to the "lived with" requirement as allowing benefits to recognized natural children "when they have been . . . living with the parent in a regular parent-child relationship." H.R.Doc. No. 402, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 41 (1966). This language might appear to be inconsistent with our construction of the "lived with" requirement. The language was formulated by the Executive Branch, however, not by Congress, and, at most, simply reflects the Civil Service Commission's interpretation of the statute.
We recognize that the Civil Service Commission has interpreted the "lived with" requirement to be a "living with" requirement, although the Government does not inform us whether the agency interpretation was contemporaneous with the 1956 enactment. We do not disregard this evidence of the meaning of the statute. See, e.g., Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 432 U. S. 425, n. 9 (1977). In view of our analysis of the statute and its legislative history, and considering the need to avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudication, however, the agency interpretation would not be decisive even if it were contemporaneous.
Because we hold that the Civil Service Retirement Act expressly allows the appellee's children to receive survivors' annuities, there is no question that the Court of Claims below had both jurisdiction to entertain their claims and authority to grant recovery. See United States v. Testan, 424 U. S. 392, 424 U. S. 397-398 (1976); Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 606-607, 372 F.2d 1002, 1007-1009 (1967). In light of our holding, we need not address the Government's argument that the Court of Claims exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared 5 U.S.C. § 8341(a)(3)(A)'s "lived with" requirement unconstitutional, severed that requirement from the statute, and awarded relief to the appellee's children based on the remaining language in the statute. Cf. United States v. Testan, supra.
The question in this case is whether the illegitimate children of a federal employee, who lived with his children after their birth and had a legal obligation to contribute to their support until his death, are eligible to receive survivors' benefits under the Civil Service Retirement Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8331 et seq. The statutory definition of "child" under that Act includes a "recognized natural child who lived with the employee . . . in a regular parent-child relationship." 5 U.S.C. § 8341(a)(3)(A)(ii).
Because I agree that these children satisfy the statutory definition, I concur in the judgment of the Court. I write separately because I do not believe that the Court's broad construction of the "lived with" requirement is compatible with congressional intent or necessary to avoid constitutional difficulties.
The Court recognizes that the "lived with" requirement could serve governmental purposes by providing proof of either paternity or dependence. The Court concludes that the "lived with" requirement is not designed to prove paternity, because the statute separately requires that an eligible illegitimate be a "recognized natural child." Ante at 445 U. S. 30. I agree.
I cannot accept so easily the Court's further conclusion that the "lived with" requirement was not designed to prove dependency. Although the 1966 amendment demonstrates that the "lived with" requirement cannot be interpreted to demand that more than one-half of a child's support come from the deceased parent, it does not demonstrate that Congress intended to eliminate entirely the dependency requirement. As a matter of statutory construction and common sense, the statement that an illegitimate who fulfills the "lived with" requirement need not meet an additional dependency requirement, ante at 445 U. S. 32, quoting H.R. Doc. No. 402, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 41 (1966), indicates that Congress intended the "lived with" test to serve as the functional equivalent of a dependency requirement. The Court's assumption to the contrary deprives the "lived with" requirement of any legislative purpose. Rather than construe a statutory provision to serve no identifiable congressional goal, I would conclude that Congress intended the "lived with" requirement to serve as a means through which illegitimate children may prove actual dependency on the deceased parent.
The recognition of the children's claim in this case clearly does not frustrate the congressional intent that only dependent illegitimate children receive survivors' annuities. I therefore would hold that children who show a continuing relationship of dependency with their father, which includes living with him in the past and receiving support from him when they lived apart, satisfy the requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 8341(a)(3)(A)(ii). I do not believe, however, that the Court needs to find the requirement satisfied no matter when the child lived with the deceased parent. In some circumstances, proof of a domestic living situation at some far distant period in the child's life may not demonstrate actual dependency. Accordingly, I would go no further than concluding that these children have satisfied the "lived with" requirement.
* I believe that the Court errs in assuming that its broad interpretation of the "lived with" requirement will always avoid constitutional difficulty. The imposition of the "lived with" requirement as a test of actual dependency may be unconstitutional in a case in which a father had always supported, but never lived with, an illegitimate child.
of Claims in Gentry v. United States, 212 Ct.Cl. 1, 546 F.2d 343 (1976). Nor do I disagree with the Court's construction of the statute in issue. I dissent, however, because I believe that the Court should remand the case to the Court of Claims for consideration of the statutory claim in the first instance.
"but that the claim should be aired first in the District Court. Vacating the judgment and remanding the case for this purpose will require the District Court first to decide the statutory issue, . . . and if appellants prevail on that question, it will be unnecessary for either the District Court or this Court to reach the equal protection issue at all."
Id. at 425 U. S. 236. See also Wyman v. Rothstein, 398 U. S. 275 (1970); Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U. S. 129 (1946). In Richardson v. Morris, 409 U. S. 464 (1973), the District Court decided a constitutional question under an erroneous assumption of Tucker Act jurisdiction, and this Court found it necessary to remand the case so that the District Court could determine what other permissible grounds of decision may have been open to it.
question presented in this case, we should have permitted it the opportunity to exercise that jurisdiction. Only this Term, we remanded a case to the Court of Claims for consideration of an issue not resolved by that court. Hatzlachh Supply Co. v. United States, 444 U. S. 460 (1980). By remanding here, we would conform the disposition of this case to our customary practice which recognizes the usefulness of district and appellate court opinions on the questions ultimately reviewed here, as well as the need to reserve this Court's plenary consideration for questions still warranting final decision here after decision by another court.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8341
 v. 
 § 1255
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1254
 v. 
 § 1252
 § 8341
 § 1252
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1252
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 231
 § 416
 § 416
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8341
 v. 
 § 8331
 § 8341
 § 8341
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.