Document: 443 U.S. 76 99 S.Ct. 2655 61 L.Ed.2d 382 Joseph A. CALIFANO, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellant,v.Cindy WESTCOTT et al., John D. PRATT, etc., Appellant, v. Cindy al. Nos. 78-437, 78-689. Argued April 16, 1979. Decided June 25, Syllabus Section 407 the Social Security Act, which governs Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Unemployed Father (AFDC-UF) program, provides benefits families whose dependent children have been deprived parental support because unemployment father, but does not provide such when mother becomes unemployed. This class action was instituted in Federal District Court against Department Welfare (Secretary) Commissioner Massachusetts Public (Commissioner) by appellees, two couples (each having an infant son) who satisfy all requirements for AFDC-UF except requirement that parent is "unemployed" within meaning Act applicable regulations be father. Appellees alleged § its implementing discriminate on basis gender violation Fifth Fourteenth Amendments, sought declaratory injunctive relief. The declared unconstitutional insofar as it establishes a classification discriminates solely sex, determined extension program needy where either unemployed, rather than nullification proper remedial course. Subsequently, declined modify order so permit pay only those family's "principal wage-earner." challenges holding constitutionality 407, whereas Held : 1. substantially related attainment any important valid statutory goals; is, rather, part "baggage sexual stereotypes," Orr Orr, 440 268, 283, 1102, 1113, 59 306, presumes father has "primary responsibility home essentials," Stanton Stanton, 421 7, 10, 95 1373, 1375, 43 688 while "center family life." Taylor Louisiana, 419 522, 534 n. 15, 692, 699 42 690. Legislation rests presumptions, without more, cannot survive scrutiny under Due Process Clause Amendment. Pp. 83-89. (a) sustained theory although incorporates distinction, women affects units individuals. 83-85. (b) Nor can 407's distinction constitutional being achievement governmental objective. It serve goal providing aid children, nor achieving objective reducing incentive fathers desert make their eligible assistance. 85-89. 2. Court's proper. 89-93. Since no party argued course, this would inclined consider issue if power were clearly beyond competence federal district court. However, previous decisions, routinely affirmed court judgments ordering welfare programs, suggest strongly incapacity exists. 89-91. Court, paid or unemployed accepting wage-earner" model suggested Commissioner, adopted simplest most equitable possible. 91-93. D.C.Mass., 460 F.Supp. 737, affirmed. William H. Alsup, Dept Justice, Washington, D.C., appellant No. 78-437. Paul W. Johnson, Boston, Mass., Henry Freedman, New York City, appellees both cases. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 75 Stat. 75, amended, U.S.C. 607, Children United States held violates Amendment, ordered same extent they are 737 (1978). In these appeals, (HEW), question relief Court; (DPW), 78-689, acquiesces decision merits, contests 2 * (AFDC) 49 626, 601 seq., financial assistance children. administered participating States, conformity standards, financed Government matching-funds basis. King Smith, 392 309, 316-317, 88 2128, 2132-2133, 20 1118 (1968); Shea Vialpando, 416 251, 253, 94 1746, 1750, 40 120 (1974). 3 As originally enacted 1935, AFDC provided death, absence, parent. Batterton Francis, 432 416, 418, 97 2399, 2402, 53 448 (1977). provision, forms core today, neutral: available long one sex dead, absent from home, incapacitated, otherwise meets eligibility. 606. 4 1961, again 1962, Congress temporarily extended parent's unemployment. U.S., at 419, S.Ct., 2403; Philbrook Glodgett, 707, 709-710, 1893, 1896-1897, 44 525 (1975). Again, provision neutral. A "dependent child," purposes determining eligibility benefits, defined include "a child . care reason parent." (emphasis added). 5 1968, general revision made permanent. doing, however, added qualification statute. definition child" amended "needy his father." 607(a) portion known (AFDC-UF). Although 50 chosen participate basic 26 (plus Guam Columbia) take program. One Commonwealth Massachusetts. 6 who, stipulated, benefits1 Westcott married son. They applied DPW public assistance, informed did qualify William, unable find work, had previously employed sufficient period regulations. Cindy, until her recent unemployment, breadwinner, satisfied "unemployment" criteria she male. 7 Susan Westwood also Medicaid for, receiving, benefits.2 They, too, turned down ground John's prior work history insufficient. Susan, like Westcott, breadwinner before losing job, qualified 8 Massachusetts, naming defendants HEW DPW. Amendments. 9 certified case action,3 granted appellees' motion summary judgment. found interests. F.Supp., 748-751. was, product "archaic overbroad generalization"—that "mothers breadwinners, loss earnings affect families' well being." Id., 751. accordingly "insofar sex." 754. 10 then saw alternatives: simple injunction further operation 753. decided extension, nullification, course; noted strength Congress' commitment "specific assisting children," emphasized "were halted defect, many persons lose very means subsistence." 753-754. therefore, dated 20, 1978, enjoined refusing grant "in amounts standards" he grants App. Juris. Statement pp. 41A-42A. likewise matching funds payment benefits. 40A-41A. 11 agreed appropriate remedy, p. 6, later modification order, effect more limited requested permitted "only principal wage-earner. " 3a added).4 modification, argued, accomplish gender-neutral much lower cost. 4a. On August 9, denied Commissioner's motion, believing "any reformulation scheme goes remedy already properly left Congressional action." 13a. 12 Secretary, pursuant 28 1252, appealed directly unconstitutional. 43A. took separate appeal, refusal order. 15a. We probable jurisdiction consolidated cases argument. 439 1044, 718, 58 703 II THE SECRETARY'S APPEAL 13 advances arguments 407. First, contends class. Second, urges objective: need deter real pretended desertion 14 readily concedes entails distinction. Brief Appellant 36. He submits, award denies them mother. Rather, denial based father's necessarily affects, equal degree, man, woman, puts it, even statute "gender-based," "gender-biased." Ibid. 15 persuaded analysis. For mothers primary providers families, obviously biased, deprives sex. Secretary's argument, bottom, turns fact impact felt But hesitated strike classifications result qualifying See Frontiero Richardson, 411 677, 93 1764, 36 583 (1973) (military quarters allowances medical dental benefits); Weinberger Wiesenfeld, 420 636, 1225, 514 (1975) (survivor's Califano Goldfarb, 430 199, 1021, 51 270 (1977) Jablon, 924, 1539, 789 (1977), summarily aff'g 399 118 (Md.1975) (spousal benefits). Here, cases, "discriminates particular category female spouse wage earner." 209, 1028 (plurality opinion). 16 appears acknowledge force precedents, suggests each involved form compensation earned woman member labor force, compensation. present case, contrast, noncontributory Thus, argues, distinguishable contained earlier denigrate "the efforts do contribute significantly support." 645, 1232. 17 between employment-related other government largesse may relevant protection analysis, example whether differential treatment survivor's denigrates deceased spouse. 645-647, 1231-1232; 206-207, 1026-1027 mean, Constitution indifferent conditions availability gender. argument contrary invites return discredited view "privilege" subject guarantee protection. Graham 403 365, 374, 91 1848, 1853, 29 (1971). Putting labels aside, exclusion here anything pernicious Frontiero, Goldfarb. "fringe benefits," type social regard need. subsistence payments last resort lack necessities. deprivation imposed moreover, mere procedural barrier, proof-of-dependency absolute bar aid. therefore reject contention B 18 next argues survives 279, 1111, 306 (1979); Webster, 313, 1192, 1194-1195, 360 (1977); Craig Boren, 429 190, 197, 451, 456, 397 (1976). identifies objectives served 19 First obviously, intended sustenance H.R.Rep.No. 28, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., (1961). Ribicoff put testimony House Ways Means Committee, "there justification whatsoever denying food you give deserts dead." Hearings H.R. 3864 3865 Committee Means, 102 contend, serves achieve goal. Tr. Oral Arg. 7-8. could he, since earner often designed structural fault original Under "continued absence 606(a). times economic adversity, thought create desert, pretend rendered reduce thereby promote stability. submits achievement. 21 perceive, least flaws relatively clear concerned about problem desertion, see S.Rep.No.744, 90th 160 (1967), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1967, 2834; H.R.Rep.No.28, (1961), there evidence address problem. 648, 1233. Both temporary versions 1961 permanent version 1968 escaped virtually unnoticed hearings floor debates.5 explanation addition following passage, nearly identical Senate Reports: 22 "This conceived fathers. some working bill allow situations. bill, apply fathers." 160. 23 H.R.Rep.No.554, 108 2997. 24 amendments tighten standards costs.6 certain making out remained fully able supportthe family. Apparently, similarly employed. From appears, Congress, image "traditional family" mind, simply assumed mother's employment role, any, secondary. short, indicates inserted costs eliminate what perceived superfluous There little desert.7 25 Even actual purpose deal paternal appear "[s]olid statistical evidence" susceptible pressure mothers, thus justified excluding headed 33. assume, discussion, legitimately distinct maternal desertion. so, stated purpose. evidence, legislative elsewhere, less will equally great, leave "one firm step" toward eliminating quoting Jobst, 434 47, 57-58, 98 95, 101-102, 54 228 legislate step time" drawn along line gender, consequence exclude group altogether badly needed Cf. Williamson Lee Optical Co., 348 483, 489, 461, 465, L.Ed. 563 (1955). conclude goals. 1376, (1975), 'center life.' 690 III COMMISSIONER'S 27 "Where defective underinclusion," Harlan noted, exist declare [the statute] nullity extend legislature benefit, coverage aggrieved exclusion." Welsh 398 333, 361, 90 1792, 1807-1808, 308 (1970) (concurring result). involving underinclusive statutes, e. g., Jimenez Weinberger, 417 628, 637-638, 2496, 2502-2503, 41 363 (1974); 691 1772 Indeed, regularly members unconstitutionally excluded E. 396 308, 309 (EDNY 1975); Silbowitz, 768 862, 871 (SDFla.1975); Jablon Califano, 118, 132-133 (Md.1975); 367 981, 991 (NJ 1973); Dept. Agriculture Moreno, 413 528, 2821, 37 782 (1973), 345 310, 315-316 (DC 1972); Richardson Griffin, 409 1069, 689, 34 660 (1972), 346 1226, 1237 (Md.). invalidation way here, considerations surely choice. Approximately 300,000 currently receive Soc.Sec.Bull. 78 (Jan. 1979), suspending program's impose hardship beneficiaries whom plainly meant protect. presence strong severability clause, 1303,8 counsels evidences congressional intent minimize burdens declaration unconstitutionality upon innocent recipients largesse. need, elaborate should ordered, presented review. All parties remedy. 6; Motion Affirm 5; 5. arguing favor constitutionality, that, invalidated, Appellee 5-10. proper, 18; indeed, appeal limit lines. versus review, we 30 narrower concerns merits take. Act. agrees proposes show Citing proposed comports breadwinner's preceding portions show, force. assume arguendo knew knows now, might Commissioner. mean restructured lines 31 terminating receiving them. regulations, fathers, actually 607(a); 45 CFR 233.100(a)(1) No invalid. Absent showing invalidity, hesitate terminate entitlement merely prove "breadwinner" status. 32 involve restructuring undertake lightly. Whenever extends redress underinclusiveness, risks infringing prerogatives. possesses virtue simplicity: "father" replaced equivalent, avoided disruption terms solution, introduce term novel scheme,9 pose definitional policy questions best suited administrative elaboration. gloss essence asks redefine Yet "Congress 407(a) expressly delegated prescribe constitutes 'unemployment' situation kind, entrusts courts, interpreting term." 425, 2405 original). 33 proposes, undeniably cheaper decreed, current recipients' cost dispositive factor contexts, controlling here. bear main burden through grants, furthermore, optional id., 431, 2408, State free drop dissatisfied expense. event, ill-equipped estimate relative various types coverage, gauge different levels expenditures alleviation human suffering. circumstances, fine-tuning democratic branches Government. sum, believe effort render neutral, judgment 35 ordered. POWELL, CHIEF JUSTICE, STEWART, REHNQUIST join, concurring dissenting part. I agree component my view, below erred become reinstates system distributing rejected 1968. Rather frustrate observed: 38 underinclusion 39 choosing alternatives, attempt accommodate possible policies expressed whole. 365-366, 18, 1809-1810, 18. use powers circumvent legislature. correctly observes [of 407] costs." Ante, 87. proscribe continued work. "From 'traditional family' secondary." 88. affirming compel exactly wished prevent.1 rewriting task Congress. Now impermissible gender-based discrimination, duty function Legislative Branch review light our changes therein deems appropriate. Leaving resolution especially desirable one, allocation distribution peculiarly province Branch. Maher Roe, 464, 479, 2376, 2385, 484 Dandridge Williams, 471, 1153, 491 (1970). predict think interest total suffering development understanding approved ultimately whenever became now adopt ruling emphasizes hardships caused enjoining act. possibility, mentioned occasioned allocating court-ordered option mitigate promptly retroactive payments. An prohibiting conserve appropriated determines group, want assist. ensures irretrievable wish benefit.2 46 Because prevent mandated re-examination required dissent. To must meet categorical requirements. vary widely another. Rosado Wyman, 397, 408-409, 1207, 1215-1216, 442 requirements, largely itself specifies 13-quarter ending year application aid, 100 hours per month. 607(b)(1)(C). addition, gives authority promulgate defining 2405, statute, speak "father." 1396 individuals entitled 1396a(a)(10). "those parents minor born unborn, Massachusetts' hence well, discrimination [42 607] [6 CHSR III, Subch. A, Pt. 301, 301.03; 303, Subpt. §§ 303.01 303.04] granting federally funded unemployment." 39A-40A. contest certification. 4. define income greater during six months month application. 7a-8a. During debate Conference Report, Senator Muskie briefly opposed limitation 113 Cong.Rec. 36914 (1967). overriding "[t]o emphasis getting drawing into longer rolls." H.R.Rep.No.544, end included provisions "to authorize (but limits set forth legislation), tie closely training authorized protect attachment force." 108. conclusion reinforced Reports material dealing specifically yet none 102-103 (1967); 160-163 "If chapter, thereof person circumstance, invalid, remainder circumstances shall affected thereby." 1303. example, two-parent parent, regardless perhaps approximate earner, approach presents several difficulties, demonstrates. 78-689 rejected. remains inconsistent status history. 606(a); ante, 92 9. overlooks special suffers incapacity. usually lost expenses resulting disability quite substantial. step, point emphasizes, irrelevant. turn interests parties. "infringing prerogatives," 92, acts behest litigants chooses own initiative.

Category: 1