Document: 427 U.S. 495 96 S.Ct. 2755 49 L.Ed.2d 651 F. David MATHEWS, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellant,v.Ruby M. LUCAS et al. No. 75-88. Argued Jan. 13, 1976. Decided June 29, Syllabus The Social Security Act provides that a child an individual who died fully insured under the Act, is entitled to surviving child's benefits if 18, or student 22, was dependent at time parent's death. A considered parent living with him contributed support Certain children, however, need not submit such individualized proof dependency. Unless adopted by some other person, legitimate would be inherit from state law death, even lacking this relationship intestacy presumption dependency decedent before death had gone through marriage ceremony parent, resulting in purported which, but for nonobvious defect, have been valid, acknowledged writing his, decreed court father, ordered because his. After their father died, appellee illegitimate children were administratively denied children's on ground they failed show lived them contributing his any statutory presumptions ruling upheld administrative appeal, appellees filed action review against appellant Education, alleging denial violated equal protection component Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment including all are statutorily entitled, as not, survivors' regardless actual District Court held classifications constitutionally impermissible, reversing decision ordering paid children. Held : 1. judicial scrutiny traditionally devoted cases involving discrimination along lines race national origin required legislation treats offspring differently. Pp. 503-506. 2. challenged permissible reasonably related likelihood failing extend others like them, does impermissibly discriminate compared those deemed dependent. 507-516. (a) While Congress unwilling assume every deceased presuming basis relatively readily documented facts, birth, order paternity decree, which could relied upon indicate continued dependency, able avoid burden expense specific case-by-case determination large number where objectively probable. Such aid functions, though may approximate, rather than precisely mirror, results adjudication show, Amendment, so long lack precise equivalence exceed bounds substantiality tolerated applicable level scrutiny. 509-510. (b) justified reasonable empirical judgments consistent design qualify entitlement Gomez v. Perez, 409 535, 93 872, 35 56; New Jersey Welfare Rights Org. Cahill, 411 619, 1700, 36 533; Weber Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 164, 92 1400, 31 768; Levy Louisiana, 391 68, 88 1509, 20 436; Jimenez Weinberger, 417 628, 94 2496, 41 363; Frontiero Richardson, 677, 1764, 583, distinguished. 510-516. D.C., 390 F.Supp. 1310, reversed. Keith A. Jones, Washington, D. C., appellant. C. Christopher Brown, Baltimore, Md., appellees. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents issue constitutionality, provisions condition eligibility certain insurance showing wage earner claimant and, support. 2 * Robert Cuffee, now deceased, Belmira Lucas during years 1948 1966, never married. Two born these years: Ruby Lucas, 1953, Darin E. 1960. In 1966 Cuffee separated. Providence, R. I., home, 1968. He without ever having either Darin, it determined proceeding lifetime he child. Cuffee's Mrs. application behalf § 202(d)(1) 70 Stat. 807, amended, 42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1) (1970 ed. Supp. IV), based earnings record. II 3 operative terms, unmarried son daughter individual, currently apply survivor's benefit, applicant 18 age (or full-time 22 age) dependent, within meaning statute, death.1 purpose relieved has legitimate, personal property estate law, death.2 Even child, unless decedent, between legal (c) (d) his.3 4 An Examiner Administration, after hearings, while established, demonstrate thus survivorship Act. Appeals Council Administration affirmed rulings, became final Welfare. then timely action, pursuant 205(g) 405(g), United States Rhode Island two (hereinafter sometimes called appellees) Secretary's decision. 5 ultimately each factual findings agency: father; writing; obligations subject lifetime; no common-law contracted Island; that, neither nor 1312-1314 (1975). None matters here.4 6 motion summary judgment, appellees, 363 (1974). It urged case, clear, Amendment's Clause, provision comprehends principle laws,5 Addressing issue, ruled impermissible.6 F.Supp., 1314-1321. Recognizing web regarding presumptive overinclusive actually although underinclusive, since otherwise eligible establish concluded Not intended merely replace lost parent. Id., 1319-1320. Rather, characterized statute one designed potential obligation perceived Congress, responsibility relation parents, valid one. Thus, concluded: 7 "(The Act) conditions Congress' views reflects society's view 'legitimated' more But governmental interest, cannot classification. (409 56 (1973))." 1320. (Emphasis original.) 8 With conclusion, reversed pay both Jurisdictional Statement 28a. 9 appealed directly 28 1252. We noted probable jurisdiction set argument Norton Mathews, 524, 2771, 672. 423 819, 32, 46 III 10 disagree similarly circumstanced treated differently, class, requirement proving cohabitation contribution: advantage classes whom claim.7 Statutory classifications, course, Per se unconstitutional; matter depends character its legislative aims. "The essential inquiry . inevitably dual one: What (governmental) interest classification promote? fundamental rights might endanger?" 173, 1405, 768 (1972). 11 Although close statute's necessary conclusion invalidating also treating differently suspect,8 1318-1319, requires race9 origin.10 Appellees echo approach. disagree.11 12 true, status illegitimacy, however defined, is, origin, characteristic causes control bears individual's ability participate contribute society. recognized visiting condemnation express disapproval parents' liaisons 13 "is illogical unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities contrary basic concept our system burdens should bear wrongdoing. Obviously, responsible birth penalizing ineffectual well unjust way deterring parent." U.S., 175, S.Ct., 1406. (Footnote omitted.) 14 arbitrary way, we difficulty finding impermissible less demanding standards advocated here. 543 (1973); Richardson Davis, 1069, 678, 34 659 (1972); Griffin, 689, 660 Weber, supra; 436 (1968). And irrationality itself other, possibly rational, distinctions made part legitimacy inherently untenable. placed inferior position relative circumstances, particularly regard aspects family see generally, e. g., H. Krause, Illegitimacy: Law Policy 21-42 (1971);Gray Rudovsky, Acknowledges Illegitimate: Levey Louisiana Glona American Guarantee Liability Insurance 118 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1, 19-38 (1969), perhaps roots rest conduct parents child,12 illegitimacy carry obvious badge, sex do, illegitimates approached severity pervasiveness historic political women Negroes. See 684-686, 1969-1770, 583 (1973) (plurality opinion). 15 therefore adhere earlier view, Labine Vincent, 401 532, 91 1017, 288 (1971), Act's individuals "command extraordinary majoritarian process," San Antonio School Dist. Rodriguez, 28, 1278, 1294, 16 (1973), most exacting entail.13 Jimenez, 631-634, 636, 2501, 175-176, 1406-1407. IV Relying Court, 538, 875, "once State posits judicially enforceable right needed natural fathers there sufficient justification denying simply married mother." same principle, now, applies when lies Government father. supra. 17 Consistent decisions, explains scheme assailed here program provide insureds can "need" terms times insureds' deaths. Cf. 634, 2500. authenticates description reference explicit language specifying acknowledged, etc., relevant only history indicating general welfare "approved" insureds, just "to dies ." S.Rep.No.404, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 110 (1965), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 1965, pp. 1943, 2050. Taking explanation face value, think clear conditioning discriminatory providing loss immediate source need. Geduldig Aiello, 484, 492-497, 2485, 2489-2492, 256, (1974); Jefferson Hackney, 1724, 32 285 Belcher, 404 78, 254, 30 231 (1971). 174-175, 19 contend belies description, decedents' "legitimate" claim support, death; assert, matrix adequate Since justify discriminations, argue, must fall Supra. These assertions effect same.14 appellees' fact renders class befit-recipients incrementally overinclusive, sense dependents automatically prove economic dependence earners conclude permissible, adopting obviously serve convenience. existence Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 772, 95 2457, 2471, 45 522 (1975).15 21 strictest scrutiny, approximations supported least Government's dollar "lost" overincluded benefit recipients returned "saved" avoided. 1771 Under standard appropriate here, materiality assertedly reflect " 'scientifically substantiated.' James Strange, 407 128, 133, 2027, 2030, 600 (1972), quoting Roth States, 354 476, 501, 77 1304, 1317, 1498 1957) (opinion Harlan, J.). Nor, do believe realm weigh solely dollars "spent," ignoring amounts uses. 784, 2476. Finally, judged toothless one, 691, 1772 (Stewart, J., concurring Powell, judgment; Reed Reed, 71, 251, 225 remains insubstantiality relation. Lindsley Natural Carbonic Gas 220 61, 78-79, 337, 340, 55 L.Ed. 369 (1911); cf. Gainey, 380 63, 67, 85 754, 757, 658 (1965). B Applying principles, To begin with, note significantly different confronted invalidated discriminations among legitimacy. 8S.Ct. differences render little assistance fairly argued, respect statutes struck down cases, taken indication qualification. statutes, benefits, finally demonstration factor. Griffin 346 1226 (Md.), summarily aff'd, Davis 342 588 (Conn.), supra, sole partial exception, provided recovery workmen's compensation plan event Also legitimate. 173-174, n. 12, 1405-1406. afterborn disability distinguishable. somewhat there, capable inheriting account defect marriage, onset father's disability. Other (illegitimate) conclusively rejecting considerations trustworthy accept assertion: 23 "(T)he blanket conclusive exclusion appellants' subclass prevention spurious claims (of dependency). Assuming appellants (father), purposes deny opportunity benefits." 2501. Hence, 24 presumptively available denies former laws guaranteed due process Amendment." 637, 2502. 25 Wiesenfeld, 420 645, 1225, 1231, 43 514 (1975); 539, 1021. conclusiveness belied asserted reliance absent for, noted, contribution cohabitation, Vlandis Kline, 412 441, 452-453, 9, 2230, 2236-2237, 37 63 distinguishing Starns Malkerson, 326 234 (Minn.1970), 985, 527 26 enough Some Showing found dependent's woman uniformed services her husband's half income, man obtain wife. invalidity gender-based rested "overbroad" assumption, Schlesinger Ballard, 419 498, 508, 572, 578, 610 (1975), underlying "that male workers' vital families, female wage-earners families' support." 643, 1231; Frontiero, 689 23, 1771. Here, contrast, broadly legitimates more, carefully tuned alternative considerations. withheld absence significant say factors give rise substantial agree assessment three-judge originally 364 1117, 1128 (Md.1973):16 27 "(I)t clearly rational presume overwhelming Likewise invalid typically live earner's home him. When entered court, compliance occurred. necessarily almost strongly suggest subsequently obtained. Conceding written acknowledgment lacks imprimatur proceeding, too establishes presumption. Men customarily affirm theirs likely not." 29 Similarly, think, take estate, thought will life death.17 For embodiment popular how devolve directions, degree conception felt parental "illegitimate" something during, after, life.18 Accord, Watts Veneman, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 84, 476 F.2d 529, 533 (1973). sure, none criteria compels extension constitutional question whether required, permitted. ratifying role hypothesize independently desirability feasibility possible practical judgment calculation Congress. Drawing own experience, tailored accord calculations suggested narrow objective apparently indicators. Our determine assumptions inconsistent insubstantial supportive conclusions isolate nondependent given unwarranted exercise. end, accuracy specialized competence; detail beyond evident consistency substantiality. 754 658. expectations unfounded, indiscriminate baseless. conclude, short, Reversed. STEVENS, BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 33 reason why add acquire radiantly clear: committed proposition persons created equal. Court's approving "administrative convenience" opaque insufficient: difference rejected 363, difficult discern; insufficient unfairly evaluates competing interests stake. involved prior disability; involves critical objections Apply force case. Was "over-inclusive" presumed disabled many abandoned objection "underinclusive" excluded earner.1 eligibles eight respectively. If under-inclusiveness arbitrary, objectionable attaches greater weight particular moment several years' duration. told "designed prevent claims." 633, "the exclusion" illegitimates. changed similar convenience." I name federal interest. affect processing except substituting mechanical test kind differentiate genuine. am unable identify 38 recognizes society." Ante, 505. reason, recognizes, 'imposing wrongdoing.' Ibid. Thus starts analysis premise 'illogical unjust.' seems plain me demands weightier 39 analysis, allow receive reading statute.2 40 goes on, hold giving "does scrutiny," 509. tells us very little, about "applicable scrutiny." "our 506; hand, derives "possibly rational" another source, "inherently untenable" rests illegitimacy. admittedly result accepted better basis. repeatedly disfavor invalid. 768. However irrational innocent did marry, nonetheless disfavored Because tradition especially vigilant examining traditional used pausing consider newly Habit, makes seem acceptable distinguish female, alien citizen, illegitimate; much inertia black white. sort stereotyped reaction pure prejudicial discrimination3 stated being made. "true" classification, according All subsidiary (which allowing dependency) supposedly increased convenience agency dependency? "presumption dependency" exists make eligible. qualifies. declared issued writing, Apart qualifications, lucky allows intestate par situations allege, prove, Indeed, undisputed, nevertheless qualified. 44 today attempts, length, explain rationally substantially tenuous rationalization '(m)en not,' ante, 514, noting lives years, born, always orally perceive formal paternity. asserts "in 'illegitimate' life." 514-515. That nebulous inference evidence years.4 Whether expressed legitimacy, acknowledgments, "dependent" respondents situation. Yet allocated grounds connection controlling factor persuaded sustained probably product thinking deserving legitimates. sovereign firmly reject tradition. apparent observer odious. social opprobrium, wholly unmerited, circumstance whatsoever. 47 fair evaluation stake litigation affirmance 48 respectfully dissent. Section forth 402(d)(1), pertinent part: "Every (as defined section 416(e) title) "(A) "(B) (i) attained "(C) "(ii) "shall month, beginning first month August 1950 becomes 216(e), 416(e), includes, definition Inter alia, individual," legally stepchildren, grandchildren stepgrandchildren. Additionally, 216(h)(2)(A) 416(h) (2)(A), provides: "In determining subchapter, shall applied devolution courts (such individual) domiciled Applicants taking such." 202(d)(3) 402(d)(3), "A mother specified paragraph (1)(C) subsection unless, time, individual." qualifies 216(h)(2)(A), Supra, purposes, 202(d)(3), "a 416(h)(2)(B) 416(h)(3) 216(h)(2)(B), 416(h)(2)(B), "If (and be) subparagraph (A), be, went impediment described last sentence (1)(B), marriage." 216(h)(1)(B), 416(h)(1)(B), turn, refers "an dissolution previous arising out dissolution, (ii) procedure followed 216(h)(3), 416(h)(3), "An (2) if: "(i) "(I) daughter, "(II) applicant, "(III) "and acknowledgment, shown satisfactory died." Upon original petition 205(g), made, remanded left unconsidered proceeding. adverse point unsuccessful again sought presenting asserting challenge turned questions appeal. See, 2502; Dept. Agriculture Moreno, 413 528, 5, 2821, 2825, 782 680 1767, "Memorandum Order" 30, 1974. Viewing requiring convention district §§ 2282 2284, single Judge reach issue. convened, disbanded renewed omitted request injunctive relief. correctly Judge. adds nothing saddled procedural facts prove. illegitimate, rests. suggest, successfully, strict because, regulating discriminatorily interferes fundamentality. 768-770, 2468-2469, Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 90 1153, 491 (1970). privacy familial relationships protections disruption State, legitimized law. Stanley Illinois, 405 1208, 551 concerns context tangential interfere relations. Loving Virginia, 388 11, 87 1817, 1823, 1010 (1967); Bolling Sharpe, 347 497, 74 693, 98 884 (1954). Oyama California, 332 644-646, 68 269, 274-275, 249 (1948); Korematsu 323 214, 216, 65 193, 194, 89 194 (1944); Hirabayashi 320 81, 100, 1375, 1385, 1774 (1943). mean, properly discriminating supra ; 169, 172, 1403, significance consideration enabling legitimatize illegitimate. Compare 170-171, 1404, 1021, Of "dependency" Rodriguez identified "suspect class" "saddled disabilities, subjected purposeful unequal treatment, relegated powerlessness command process." 1294. bound structure themselves belie it. 648 16, 1233, unable, summon meaningful congressional design. They rely largely House-Senate Conference Committee Report 1965 Amendments reproduced 111 Cong.Rec. 18383 partially explaining, 18387, addition 3, Act: inheritance supporting so." clause's hardly support; passage appears 416(h)(3)(C)(i)(II) (III), enunciation failure adequately fit aim. "secondary" moment. McGinnis Royster, 410 263, 274-277, 1055, 1061, 1063, 282 Vacated further proceedings light 418 902, 3191, 1150 adhered remand, 1084 aff'd Sub nom. Secretary, pointing urges misconstrued 631 2499, concluding qualifying Legitimate 202(d)(3). question, correctness conclusion. First, operation recognition "legitimacy" 202(d) (3)(A) takes operational meaning. Second, 216(h)(2)(B) (3) specifically exclude qualified 216(h)(2)(A); anomalous statement example, deprived established 216(h)(3)(C)(i)(I), worked heir. 1960, Pub.L. 86-778, 924, 208(b) (d), 408(b) adding inserting deeming Any 216(h)(2) "dependent." S.Rep.No.1856, 86th 2d 133 (1960) (discussing 207(b) (d)), p. 3608; H.R.Rep.No.1799, 91-92, 152 (1960). assume, prohibited, 216(h)(2)(A). "Even classified subclasses 'overinclusive' legitimated, inherit, Conversely, 'underinclusive' excludes are, fact, record, stand footing, both; hence There survivors 402(h), widowers, 402(f). certainly "legitimate purpose" Federal Government, sensitive birth. "Distinctions citizens ancestry nature odious free people whose institutions founded doctrine equality." 1774. From inception, government directed treat "created equal" eyes Declaration Independence states: "We truths self-evident, men equal, endowed Creator unalienable Rights, Life, Liberty pursuit Happiness." rationale behind prohibition grant title nobility U.S.Const. Art. I, cl. 8, equally prohibit attaching badge ignobility citizen entitling resort supposed jurisdiction, irrational, justified.

Category: 1