Document: 422 U.S. 749 95 S.Ct. 2457. 45 L.Ed.2d 522 Caspar WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al., Appellants,v.Concetta SALFI al. No. 74—214. Argued March 19, 1975. Decided June 26, Syllabus After her husband less than six months died, appellee widow filed applications for mother's Social Security insurance benefits herself child's daughter by a previous marriage, but the Administration (SSA), both initially on reconsideration at regional level, denied basis duration-of-relationship requirements Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(c) (5) (e)(2) (1970 ed. Supp. III), which define 'widow' 'child' so as to exclude surviving wives stepchildren who had their respective relationships deceased wage earner nine prior his death. Appellees child, seeking declaratory injunctive relief, then brought class action in Federal District Court behalf all widows because nine-month requirements. A three-judge court, after concluding that it federal-question jurisdiction under 28 § 1331, held constituted constitutionally invalid 'irrebuttable presumptions,' accordingly enjoined appellants Department Welfare (HEW), its Secretary, SSA various officials from denying those Held: 1. The did not have such is barred third sentence 405(h), provides no against United States, HEW or any officer employee thereof shall be under, inter alia, 1331 recover claim arising Title II Act, covers old-age, survivors', disability benefits. Pp. 756-762. (a) That 405(h)'s sentence, contrary Court's view, does merely codify doctrine exhaustion remedies, plain sweeping language; and, moreover, construe narrowly would render superfluous view first two sentences, provide Secretary's findings decision hearing binding upon parties reviewed except provided 405(g), which, requires administrative exhaustion. 756-759. (b) There merit appellees' argument arises Constitution since, although arise Constitution, also furnishes standing substantive constitutional claim. 760-761. (c) Section extends 'action' 'to (Social Security) claim'—irrespective whether resort judicial processes necessitated discretionary decisions nondiscretionary application allegedly unconstitutional statutory restrictions—and, precluding challenges, simply they jurisdictional grants contained thus conformity with same standards apply nonconstitutional claims Act. Johnson v. Robison, 415 361, 94 1160, 39 389, distinguished. 761-762. 2. over unnamed members '(a)ny individual, final made he was party, irrespective amount controversy, may obtain review civil action,' since complaint deficient contains allegations even an much has rendered decision, otherwise, sought. P. 763-764. 3. named appellees 405(g). While regard remedies fall short meeting 405(g)'s literal there been 'final hearing' satisfying regulations specifying finality required achieved only further steps before judge possibly consideration Appeals Council, nevertheless challenging sufficiency apparently determined purposes this determination 'final.' Under Act's scheme, make determination, term decision' left undefined meaning fleshed out regulations, 405(a), interest served proceedings once concluded matter beyond determine, neither otherwise nor cognizable different section Similar considerations control requirement 'after hearing,' circumstances futile wasteful award without requiring hearing. 764-767. 4. 416(c)(5) are unconstitutional. 767-785. classification area social welfare program if rationally based free invidious discrimination. 768-770. noncontractual receive funds public treasury enjoys protected status, course discrimination among claimants. Stanley Illinois, 405 645, 92 1208, 31 551; Cleveland Board Education LaFleur, 414 632, 791, 52, here available compliance objective criterion, one Legislature considered bear sufficiently close nexus underlying policy objectives used test, eligibility. present evidence meet specified requirements, failing test cannot related legitimate legislative can deprive them do satisfy Vlandis Kline, 412 441, 93 2230, 37 63, 770-773. meets standard Congress, concern having reasonably aroused possibility abuse—the use sham marriages secure benefits—which legitimately desired avoid, could particular limitation qualification protect occurrence expense other difficulties individual determinations justified inherent imprecision objective, easily administered prophylactic rule. 773-780. (d) Neither fact excludes some married anticipation shortly becoming filter every claimant, lives longer anticipated illness recognized terminal more death, necessarily renders scheme possible debate wisdom excluding claimants order discourage relationships, relying rule obviously arrangements, Congress choose adopt course. 781-783. D.C., 373 F.Supp. 961, reversed. Harriet S. Shapiro, Washington, appellants. Don B. Kates, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., appellees. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Appellants, officials, appeal States Northern California invalidating eligibility earners. 961 (1974). 2 court virtue eventually certified case action. On merits, 216(c)(5) (e) (2) 49 Stat. 620, added, 64 510, amended, 'irrebutable presumptions' were authority 52 (1974); 63 (1973); 551 (1972). We hold while provisions asserted members. decide wrong merits question tendered 3 * Appellee Salfi earner, Londo L. Salfi, May 27, 1972. Despite alleged apparent good health time suffered heart attack month later, died November 21, 1972, marriage. Doreen Kalnins.1 These Administration, solely (e)(2), 'child.' definitions death.2 4 action, principally jurisdiction. They sought represent 'all earners widow's (sic) children's within marriage applicant (in stepchild) applicant's mother.' App. 8. least partial personal claims, similar relief challenged statute, restraining statute. In addition attorneys' fees costs, 'damages sums due owing equivalent plaintiffs became entitled date said entitlement.' Id., 13. 5 heard cross-months summary judgment, granted substantially prayed judgment holding statute unconstitutional, consisting eligible spouses . heretofore disqualified receipt operation' ordered 'from original F.Supp., 966. noted probable judgment. 419 992, 301, 264 6 basic contention pass muster, several contentions bearing scope monetary awarded contend sovereign immunity insofar consists retroactive benefits, regardless invalidation should given prospective effect only, properly handle certain class-action issues. Because we conclude constitutional, occasion reach retroactivity confronted, however, serious suit. 7 405(h) part: 8 'No (§ seq.) caim (Title Act).'3 9 face, provision bars district suits, one, seek Yet successfully invoked provision, inapplicable amounted codification remedies. readig was, think, entirely too narrow. 10 codified own language, direct states actions exhausted. Moreover, construed nothing exhaustion, superfluous. This sentences appear margin,4 assure will required. Specifically, prevent save 405(g).5 latter prescribes typical matters agency, including exhaustion.6 Thus treatment ignored sentence's relegated function already performed provisions. 11 somewhat substantial relies affects 'any II)' Act.7 II. It would, course, fruitless arguments critical complaint. But just argue For recover, presentation contentions. sought, granted, directing pay To whose ignore language substance being so, precludes adjudication 12 argued 389 (1974), supports proposition 38 211(a), provides: 13 '(T)he (Veterans') Administrator law Veterans' providing veterans conclusive official power nature mandamus otherwise.' 14 resolve preclude constitutionality limitation. not, basically 'decision' 'on fact'; indeed, Administrator, issue U.S., 367—368, 1166. litigated 211(a)' express veterans' legislation. 15 quite different. Its limited issues fact. Rather, restrictions. 16 another reason why Robinson inapposite. expressly based, part, 211(a) reached challenges limitations, absolutely available. Not restriction extraordinary, 'clear convincing' ascribe intent 373, 1169, raised validity construed. 366—367, 1165—1166. case, discussed below, itself words challenges. require applicable result unquestionable constitutionality, manifestly reasonable, assures opportunity litigation ascertain, example, involved reasons allowable 17 As stated, determinations. 405(g) commenced sixty days mailing him notice ..' See n. 5, supra. must now deal serve case. class.8 18 specifies following review: (1) hearing; commencement 60 (or allow); (3) filing appropriate general plaintiff's residence principal place business. second these specify, respectively, limitations venue. such, waivable parties, timely see Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 8(c), 12(h)(1), need here. interpret requirement, central requisite grant subject-matter jurisdiction—the empowers courts type 'final' 'made hearing.' 19 seeks denial wording grounds, affect, nonetheless established. Flemming Nestor, 363 603, 80 1367, 1435 (1960). members, Other sources foreclosed concerns class, entered dismissal. 20 respect difficult. paragraph 'Exhaustion Remedies,' alleges fully presented Office denial, Regional reconsideration.' dispute Office's law, competence. face specify possibly, Council. CFR 404.916, 404.940, 404.951 21 previously applied issue. Parisi Davidson, 34, 815, (1972); McKart 395 185, 89 1657, 23 194 (1969). Exhaustion generally preventing premature interference agency processes, efficiently correct errors, afford benefit experience expertise, compile record adequate review. See, e.g., id., 193—194, 1662—1663. Plainly satisfied himself Once high level needs, applicant, commitment resources unsupported interest. 22 significantly statutorily prerequisite. is, therefore, noted, something judicially developed dispensed conclusion futility equally true precisely analogous classical sections 1332. flesh regulation.9 405(l) accords complete delegate duties officers employees Welfare. deems interests effective efficient administration. substitute believe inconsistent congressional bar determining cases full internal procedures necessary Much about wasteful, resolved concededly competence decide, may, understand similarly favor hearing, considers useless. 24 raise challenge review, proceed claim.10 III 25 relied history intended payments. 'the constitutes presumption like Mrs. Salfi's, precede earner's death months, into purpose securing benefits.' 965. conclusive, applicants afforded disprove presence illicit purpose. our (1972), presumed universally true. 26 Our ultimate aware holdings sound note, explain ourselves length. 27 testing Congress' clearly stated 611, 1373, 1435: 'Particularly when withholding Security), recognize Due Process Clause thought interpose manifests patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking rational justification.' 29 Richardson Belcher, 404 78, 254, 30 231 (1971), portion claimant subjected 'offset' simultaneous state workmen's compensation attacked violative Fifth Amendment. offsetting payment, payment private insurer. said: 'If goals legitimate, adopted achievement goals, violate Amendment.' 84, 258. Two terms earlier decided Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 90 1153, 491 (1970), rejected Maryland legislation violated Equal Protection Fourteenth 32 'In economics welfare, State 33 classifications laws imperfect. If 'reasonable basis,' offend 'is mathematical nicety practice results inequality.' Lindsley Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 61, 337, 340, 55 L.Ed. 369. 'The problems government practical ones justify, require, rough accommodations—illogical, be, unscientific.' Metropolis Theatre Co. City Chicago, 228 69—70, 443, 57 730. 34 'To sure, cited, many others enunciating fundamental Clause, main regulation business industry. administration assistance, contrast, involves most economic needs impoverished human beings. dramatically real factual difference between cited find applying standard. consistently restricting availability employment opportunities. Goesaert Cleary, 335 464, 69 198, 163; Kotch River Port Pilot Comm'rs, 330 552, 67 910, 91 1093. 1435. And principle Amendment gives federal impose views what wise policy.' 485—486, S.Ct., 1161—1162. 35 relation equal protection analysis process Nestor Belcher described language: 36 'A consistent 'rationally discrimination.' 487, 1162, 491. involving directly implicate Amendment's articulated perforce Cf. Bolling Sharpe, 347 497, 499, 74 693, 694, 98 884.' 81, 257. plainly lay down governing disposing Court, chose rely supra; characterized recent group dealing appropriateness evidentiary presumptions.' Illinois guaranteed Fourth deny parental fitness unwed father parents custody children challenged. referred 'rights conceive one's deemed 'essential.' Meyer Nebraska, 262 390, 399, 43 625, 626, 1042 (1923), 'basic rights man,' Skinner Oklahoma, 316 535, 541, 62 1110, 1113, 86 1655 (1942), '(r)ights far precious property rights,' Anderson, 345 528, 533, 73 840, 843, 97 1221 (1953).' 651, 1212. definition 'residents' fixing tuition paid students university system invalid. where Connecticut purported concerned residency, might residency show factors 452, 2236. 40 LaFleur invalid, Vlandis, school board pregnant teachers take unpaid maternity leave commencing four five expected birth. longstanding recognition 'that freedom choice family life liberties Amendment,' 639—640, 796, 'overly restrictive constitute heavy burden exercise freedoms.' 640, 796. 41 controlling us now. Unlike supra, though invidiously discriminate 'bare desire harm politically unpopular group.' Dept. Agriculture Moreno, 413 U.S 534, 2821, 2826, 782 (1973), criteria goal. Jimenez Weinberger, 417 628, 636, 2496, 2501, Murry, 508, 513—514, 2832, 2835, 767 (1973). 449, 2235, purport speak bona fides relevant inadmissible. Starns Malkerson, 326 234 (Minn.1970), summarily aff'd, 401 985, 1231, 527 Like Starns, completely requirements; effort, test. think extension Stanley, turn virtual engine destruction countless judgments wholly Amendments Constitution. very authorizes this, indisputable places people file 'class' limit. follow analysis, try ascertain 'purpose' behind probably stale court. questions flat cutoff individualized prejudice untimely filing, each degree involvement eschewed unusual circumstances, unlike role mandated Dandridge, well host efforts regulate enterprises. Williamson Lee Optical 348 483, 75 461, 99 563 (1955), dealt Oklahoma opticians detailed regulation, exempted sellers ready-to-wear glasses. sustaining 44 problem perennial admitting doctrinaire definition. Evils field dimensions proportions, Or legislature think.' 489, 465. More recently, Mourning Family Publications Service, Inc., 411 356, 1652, 318 sustained promulgated Truth Lending disclosure whenever credit offered consumer "for either finance charge imposed pursuant agreement, payable installments." 362, 1657. conclusively presume payments agreement instalments included charge, 46 measure; creditors ambit assess charges, but, rather, imposes defined evasion class.' 377, 1664. 47 permit latitude regulating sector economy, surely allow prescribing conditions treasury. With principles mind, consider 48 402 III) enactment defining old-age survivors payments, divided lettered subsections. Subsection (g) 'Mother's benefits,' primarily governs Salfi. Kalnins makes subsections, along 402, types risks policy. system, operated governmental entity, subject Geduldig Aiello, 484, 2485, 256 disposition instructive. reversed failed disabilities associated normal pregnancy. 50 suggested moderate alterations regarded 'variables' accommodate include pregnancy program's protection. said, expensive excluded coverage—short-term disabilities. compel pregnancy, hard perceive short-term participating employees. 51 'It evident totally comprehensive costly inevitably subsidy, higher rate contribution, lower scale suffering insured disabilities, combination measures. subordinate compromise create has.' 495—496, 2491. different, defends reasonable risk coverage, instead method assuring events covered program.11 Commercial policies traditionally fixed, rules abuses expand liability concept coverage. often cover deaths suicide, suicides contemplated purchased. Frequently chosen contain conceptual bounds strict suicide if, occur fixed period issued. G. Couch, Cyclopedia Insurance Law 40.50 (2d 1962). doubtless proves 'under-inclusive' 'over-inclusive,' light purpose, widely accepted response economy certainty coverage terms. When Government chooses tradition programs, come up stone wall. long comport reasonableness enunciated Williams Belcher. 53 standards, filters those, position generated reflected Such ban provisions, Mourning, Nor part caused concern, nonmembers. abuse occurrence, 54 danger persons entering relationship enjoy traditional enable spouse early beginning program. addresses specifically discussions wife's 402(b). 416(b) ed., IV), 'wife.' Dr. A. J. Altmeyer, Chairman Board, five-year 'should enough larger payments.' Hearings House Committee Ways Means, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., vol. 3, p. 2297 (1939). Similarly, Advisory Council stated: wives' allowance marital status existed husband's attainment age plan through contracting acquiring enhanced takes years paid, assumption exists contracted faith.' 1, 31. 56 402(e) depend 'widow': 'As allowances, believed desirable widows' minimum status.' 32. 58 Senate Reports 1946 amendment reduced three duration 59 exploitation fund beneficiaries get Experience shown unnecessarily that, number cases, wife permanently beneficiary. amendment, taken 202(b) living sufficient trust remedy situations seem inequitable. Few likely marry prospect receiving modest until years.' H.R.Rep.No.2526, 79th 2d 25; S.Rep.No.1862, 33, U.S.Code Cong. Serv., 1946, 1510. Later amendments accompanied reflect obtaining 1967, durational year Report 61 'Your committee's bill reduce widows, widowers, workers months. 1-year safeguard rights. worked satisfactorily, called attention year. Although appropriate, stringent adequate.' H.R.Rep.No.544, 90th 56. 1972 added 416(k)(2) (eliminating ninemonth remarriages months), observed: 'This precaution undertaken rights.' H.R.Rep.No. 92—231, (1971); & Admin.News 5042. Undoubtedly material integrity Trust Fund relationship. undoubtedly operates lessen likelihood contemplation imminent suffer ease operation. note narrow range characteristics establish genuineness (and potential benefits). Even immediately she disjunctive 416(c). mother late son daughter; legally 18; circumstances; during however short, child 18—in ormother's months.12 common denominator appears responsibilities normally treated alternative indicia acquire qualifying none evidences present. 65 them. likewise lingers anticipated, illnesses facts 66 clear Large numbers programs potentially inquiry classes represent,13 requirements.14 approach obviate necessity large determinations, protects uncertainties delays marriages. effectively intent, expectancy, knowledge reliable determinable.15 Finally, prevailing encourage relationships. doubt sweep broadly evils deal. sense, represents genuine spent making expression millions beneficiaries, best bulk actually entered, discourages ever taking place, administered. 68 choices price conducting distribution 496, 2491—2492. criminal prosecutions, involve affirmative seriously curtails important generalized concerns, outweigh marginal increments precise effectuation produce. 70 Reversed. 71 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 72 I agree BRENNAN extended discussion unwarranted. legislatively created presumptions frequently invade right jury trial. Tot 319 463, 473, 1241, 1247, 87 1519 (1943) (Black, J., concurring). designed Whether aim fact, therefore vacate remand give sham. BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, err, my 76 Jurisdiction 77 devotes pages, indeed argued, peripherally,1 briefs oral argument. complicated baffled court's appeals contexts.2 Of always obliged inquire jurisdiction, proper according cause event,3 wiser leaving resolution consequence, have, volition request briefed issue.4 Surely, intend new canvassing, discussion, lurking impact 78 treats fully, am well. For, research consideration, unaided help ordinarily adversary adequate, convinced construction attributes established notions support Further, today's square conflict finally, exclusive route adjudicating claim, how aspects 79 rejects section, characterizes 'sweeping (stating) exhausted.' Ante, 757. say kind entitling someone Act; says seq. II).' (Emphasis added.) believe, 'arise under' manner 'recover' Parts B C, infra. bans, suits sense set facts, claimed Thus, last codifies usual particular, plaintiff avoid bringing .a claiming exhaust prescribed 81 suggests reading redundant. gave soon went effect. document prepared approved January 1940 outline followed newly enacted 1939,5 interaction (h) follows: 82 act, (405(g)), Courts. hearings dissatisfied Board. Board's consist records cases. hand, reversals separate Actions (405(h)). occurs.' Agency, Basic Provisions Adopted Hearing Review Old-Age Survivors Claims Discussion Certain Administrative Problems Legal Consideration (1940), Attorney General's Procedure, Procedures Agencies, S.Doc.No.10, 77th pt. (1941). 83 Since 'specifically exclude(s)' 'action,' italicized refers sentence. 84 responsible enforcement 'superfluous' 'already provisions.' 757, 759, 6. explained margin,6 superfluous, such. interpretations agencies statutes administer great weight, see, 1166; Udall Tallman, 380 16, 85 792, 801, 616 (1965). instance, contemporary intimately formulation 1939 amendments,7 insight intent.8 Indeed, assume inserted situation here—a suit attacking despite Yet, able point lawsuit formulated sections, either. Without evidence, attribute intention sort attack. 'Adjudication enactments agencies.' Oestereich Selective Service Bd., 393 233, 242, 414, 419, (1968) (Harlan, concurring result); 368, 1166, 389.9 K. Davis, Treatise 20.04 (1958). applicable, nonexistent remedies.' 78. Aircraft Diesel Equipment Corp. Hirsch, 331 752, 773, 1493, 1503, 1796 (1947). assume, impute discussed, actual way clarified, made, expertise apply. imputing odd especially import contrary. 'arising because, applied, certainly lose. Instead, 'arises itself. construing statutes,10 dictate result. 88 Johnson, ante, 761, 367, 1166: prohibitions aimed veterans. 'under' interpretation .. '(t)he challenged." (Citation omitted.) 761-762, turned 'decisions fact.' First, quotation above shows, concentrated administrator significantly, had, 1957 1970, read '(D)ecisions concerning (1964 V) (emphasis added). 368—369, 9. 405(h). attacks encompasses versions 'claim benefits' affected statute.11 Aside affirm controversy regarding title land 'merely derived act Congress.' Shulthis McDougal, 225 561, 570, 704, 707, 1205 (1912). Oneida Indian Nation County Oneida, 661, 676, 772, 782, 73, 'a enforce origin States.' Shoshone Mining Rutter, 177 505, 507, 726, (1900); Nation, 683, 785 (Rehnquist, Unless requires, resolution, even, all. 569, 706; 677, 782. art referring, body determine question. Here, permits require. Therefore, II, precluded 1331. C 'action claim.' 'recover claim' aspect Gainville Richardson, (D.C.Mass. 1970).12 Judge Wyzanski wrote 405(h): 96 does, perhaps improperly, damages, prayers 203(f)(3) 403(f)(3) injunction defendant section. successful prayers, recovery still process. deduction.' 18. seems eminently sensible me. 790-792, 8, reveal supposing immediate relief. mutilate language. Gainville, applies squarely App., 12—13. 'an (for) situated.' granting rationale requested tantamount conceded preclusive concludes (But Part D, infra.) rationale, whole.13 D 100 agree, dissent admits, 765, 'have Act.' Nonetheless, construes (to) (A) Secretary.' 766 supplied.) 101 If, holds, jurisdictional,14 ibid., fail reached, exercised, apparently, account claimants' exhausting remedies,15 promptly unconstitutionally denied. leaves open lawless power, evidently, assert pleases. 102 flagrantly distorts waived recognizing futility. True, lack failure did, move dismiss entire subjectmatter Notice Motion Dismiss Summary Judgment, Record 114—117. referring (h): 103 'From permitted complaint, allege (405(g)) herein complained exhausted condition precedent defendants, jurisdiction.' Defendants' Memorandum Opposition Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction, 65. (First emphasis 104 statement, 'final," 767, indefensible. 105 briefly. flatly decisions, 106 446, 2233: '(P)ermanent irrebuttable disfavored (Clause) (Amendment).' today distinguishes struck presumptions, rights, deals (which) 772. program—the education expense. dispose attempts wish away noting 'where issue.' 2470. 107 'residency,' undefined, eligibility; ways. 'resident' parallel here, defines III). 108 Jimenez, setting 'criteria goal.' Murry irrational, irrational. collusive continually moved back presumption, 2473—2474, found, set, depriving deserving alleviating collusion. discard proportion five-year, three-year, one-year periods employed earlier. 109 says: deal.' 2476. But, supra: 110 recognizes values speed efficiency. fairly Bill Rights general, fragile vulnerable citizenry overbearing efficiency efficacy characterize praiseworthy less, more, mediocre ones.' 656, 1215. 111 say, held, assumptions per se unless provided. stricken proved rebuttable presumption. persuasive sufficient, collusive. Also, 655, 1214—1215, 643, 798, untrue proving, runs counter policy—here, survivors' measure opprobrium; purposely evade present, Government's surrendered individual's proving him. 112 402(g)(1) age, care 402(d) Supp.) dependent IV) full: '(c) (except 402(i) title) means daughter, eighteen, (4) day (6) to, therefor subsection (b), (e), title, (B) attained eighteen (subject, 402(s) title), (C) (if any) widow's, (after 18), parent's annuity 231a 45.' undisputed qualify (1), (2), (3), (4), (6). 416(e) '(e) Child. stepchild proceding deceased) preceding Prior reduction accomplished Pub.L. 90—248, 156(a) 866. 41. At enacted, 1948 recodification 28, title's courts, special-purpose relevance statutes. 'Title 'Finality decision. individuals No person, tribunal, subchapter.' 'Judicial 'Any allow. resides, business, or, reside district, Columbia. answer copy transcript based. enter, pleadings record, affirming, modifying, reversing remanding rehearing. supported adverse party submit proof regulations. shall, motion files answer, time, shown, additional remanded, ordered, modify both, modified testimony modifying affirming reviewable extent actions. Any instituted accordance survive not- withstanding change person occupying office vacancy office.' serves bypass alleging entitlement channels. prerequisite entitlement, event absent application. 402(a)—(h) 420(j)(1). filed, approved, mooted, nonfinal, 'decision Secretary' Brother heavily, post, passage 'Monograph Procedure.' monograph 'embodying investigations staff committee relative (administrative) practices of' Government. Id. Following text 'Appendix,' 'Foreword' report Bureau recommendations describes essential features authorized leadership Ralph F. Fuchs, professor Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., consultant Bureau, Bureau's report, main, written.' 34. follows three-part smaller type, parts 'Considerations Affecting System.' Within BRENNAN's effect.' Post, 790. doubts incorporating 'reading gave' provision. whole 'approved' indication approval extents report's broad-brush conceptualization system.' event, agency's occurring passage, context focus closely operative indicator suggests, authoritative source function. accurate significance goes serves; largely rather disturb survivors, rpograms enjoin operation affirm, modify, reverse Secretary. suggestion reviewing empowered enter decree reaches dispositions hear 2282, 1253. However, convened, parties. appellate 1252. McLucas DeChamplain, 421 31—32, 1365, 1372, 699 (1975). 405(a): procedures, subchapter, carry proofs furnishing hereunder.' Weinberger Wiesenfeld, 420 1225, 514 (1975), stipulated futile, Wiesenfeld complied 641 briefly argues become earner. Brief Appellants 11—12. argument, justification. natural requirement. 416(e)(1) According calendar 1973 125,000 1,313,000 403,000 widow's/widower's figures bases doubtlessly restriction, thereby dissuaded feel magnitude case-by-case reference Administration's estimate $30 million, assuming 1967. figure met none-month never 416(b), (f), (g), 'wife,' 'husband,' 'widower.' 'wife's' 402(b) 'husband's' 402(c), 'widower's' 402(f) addition, 'widow's' women 416(c)'s 'widow.' 'Parent's' 402(h), 402(h)(3), stepparents adoptive half support, adoption creating occurred 16th birthday. expectancy reliably determined. argue, 'terminal illness' known, go farther knew illness. demonstrate physicians' affidavits documentary medical evidence. rebuttals variety expect encountered. McGowan Maryland, 366 420, 426, 1101, 1105, (1961). 'knowledge applicants, proof. convincingly carried happened physical examinations weddings; awarding examination, available, participants arrangements conceal illness'; restricted virtually mere probability relationship; yet inquiries complex indeed. Additional proposed it, presumably limit instances outside length disqualify all, paraphrasing Lord Keynes, run die). side lines disadvantaged vis-a -vis side. basically, unrelated fulfill promises engagement. exactly towards rely. 416(k) exceptions determines 'could live months.' inordinate burden. merit. expresses willingness accept indices (the accidental line military duty, months). feasibility rationality choosing so. statement '(w)hether (suit) security Jurisdictional Statement Their waive immunity, met. 16—18. Tr. Oral Arg. 7—8: 'Question: (I)s here? 'Mrs. Shapiro: identified conceded, invalidate Bartley Finch, 311 876 (ED Ky.1970), aff'd sub nom. 980, 442, 364 (Mass.1970); Griffin 346 1226 (D.C.Md.), 409 1069, 689, 660 Diaz 361 (SD Fla.1973); 367 981 (NJ 1973), (1975); Kohr 378 1299 Pa.1974) (appeal docketed, 74—5538). non-compliance merits. affirmance explicitly with. grappled contexts. Filice Celebrezze, F.2d 443 (CA9 1963); compare Cappadora 356 (CA2 1966), Stuckey 488 904 1973) (en banc). Cappadora, Friendly, considering reopen qualification, cautioned overly sections. F.2d, 4—5. appellants—whether noncompliance 405(g)—may us, entailed canvassing discusses. reverses immaterial particularly, irrelevant question, 764, dictum. Norton 74—6212, declare contested 763 1253 improperly convened 2282. Norton, vehicle today. Sections amendments. 1938, Tit. 201, 1362. Before explicit 728, argues, 759 6, forbids via framed '(o)nce denied,' resulting 'save 405(g).' faulty respects. then, acted Second, hinge instances, category 402(e)(1)(C)(ii) (f)(1)(C) III); 402(g)(1)(D). de novo prescribe 'shall reviewed'; clear, Proposed Changes H.R.Doc.No.110, Sess. (1939); vols. pp. 45—69, 2163 2433 (1939) (testimony Board). interpretation, sparse, suggest interpreted ordinary presenting 7, '(p)rovision conclusive. World War small claims.' amendments, Altmeyer recommendation 'follow(ing) laid acts, volume lead duplicate law.' Hearings, 2288. inception run-of-the-mill paramount. Representatives 405(g): bodies.' H.R.Rep.No.728, words. .id., 43—44. alter indicated quoted sentence—to legislate Mitchell, Commissioner Security, 1959 Disability Program Subcommittee Laws 86th 977 (1960), again reflects together reiterate, bit redundantly, amply 405(h)). twice, attempted agency. re Ephram Referee's Decision, Jan. 31, 1958, 9, O.T. 1959, 54; Lillian Daniels, Judge's Nov. 14, 1973, Appellees' Affirm and/or deference. old discusses 'concerning payments' eliminated. 371—373, 1167. concluded: 'Nothing whatever 1970 predecessor noreview clauses, cognizance legislation.' 1168. affirmed 1226, 1230 expressed albeit clearly. sure issued represent, 966 (N.D.Cal.1974). points out, 'eligible' contemplates 'such eligible.' eligibility, 'otherwise eligible' exhausts mandate exist. absurd reached. full, 405(b). Rather avoiding dispense better patent inapplicability functionally impossible. ineligible man, appeared office. surprisingly, refused 640 1229. slightly obvious sex, filled application—that enough. stipulation futile. 10. Does intimate eliminated wrestling clerk somehow forcing it?

Category: 1