Document: 427 U.S. 524 96 S.Ct. 2771 49 L.Ed.2d 672 Gregory NORTON, Jr., etc., Appellant,v.F. David MATHEWS, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. No. 74-6212. Argued Jan. 13, 1976. Decided June 29, Syllabus The Social Security Act provides child survivor benefits only to a who was "dependent" upon the deceased insured parent at time parent's death. Appellant illegitimate child, did not come under any statutory presumptions dependency which legitimate children some circumstances are entitled Act, could establish his status as dependent by showing that father lived with him or contributing support administratively denied because he make such showing, having been killed in military service never assumed support. After this denial upheld on administrative appeal, class action brought appellant's behalf against appellee Welfare, seeking relief claiming, Inter alia, creating presumption dependency, consequent qualification for benefits, generally, certain circumstances, but denying appellant others similarly situated, discriminated violation equal protection guarantee implicit Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. Ultimately, three-judge District Court, convened when classwide injunctive requested allegedly unconstitutional operation Act's ruled appellee's favor merits constitutional claim granted summary judgment favor. Held: Since decision Mathews v. Lucas, 495, 2755, 651, renders present case decided issue thus one no longer substantial jurisdictional sense, it is unnecessary decide question presented whether court properly demand hence Court had jurisdiction over direct appeal 28 U.S.C. § 1253. Pp. 528-533. 390 F.Supp. 1084, affirmed. C. Christopher Brown, Baltimore, Md., appellant. Keith A. Jones, Washington, D. C., appellee. Thomas R. Adams Ann Broadwell, Legal Aid Society San Mateo County, Daly City, Cal., brief John J. Romero, amicus curiae. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 On merits, raises same constitutionality §§ 202(d)(3) 216(h)(3)(C)(ii) 64 Stat. 484, amended, 79 410, 42 402(d)(3) 416(h)(3)(C)(ii), 651. litigation, however, also issues. It now has become apparent simultaneous submission Lucas our today, us specifically questions. 2 * Norton, born out wedlock February 1964. Both mother then were high school students, aged, respectively, 16 14, separately home their parents. two married and, indeed, together. always resided maternal grandmother cared her. When born, contributed six dollars clothi other habiliments baby, but, being so young unemployed, actual 3 In 1965 entered service. He Vietnam May 19, 1966, age 19. Before death, apparently took initial steps (the procurement birth certificate items) necessary processing child's allotment. failed, complete required procedures before killed. 4 September 1969 filed an application surviving 202(d)(1) 402(d)(1), based father's earnings record. An hearing followed. Hearing Examiner concluded father, neither living nor support.1 App. 13-19. subsequent appl more successful. Id., 20-21. 5 instituted By complaint, sought alternatively grounds. First, asserted that, attempt secure allotment appellant, fact support, within meaning therefore (3) (1970 ed. Supp. IV), benefits. Second, see n. 1, class, 6 Appellant's initially considered rejected single Judge. Norton Richardson, 352 596 (Md.1972). view complaint's request certification pursuant Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23(c)(1), class-wide alleged 2282 2284 IV) pass claim. first agreed with, reaffirmed, judge's rejection Weinberger, 364 1117, 1120 (1973). went identify plaintiff id., 1120-1121,2 hisavor. 1121-1131. 7 Appellant, taking position order enjoining enforcement provisions lodged here While statement pending, Jimenez 417 628, 94 2496, 41 363 (1974), decided. This thereafter vacated court's remanded further consideration light Jimenez. 418 902, 3191, 1150 (1974). 8 remand, court, judge dissenting, adhered its earlier conclusion constitutionality. 1084 (1975). again appealed. We postponed 422 1054, 95 2676, 45 707 (1975), doing so, cited Weinberger Salfi, 749, 763 8, 2457, 2466, 522 just Subsequently, we set oral argument 423 819, 32, 46 36 II 9 relevant, course, appellate jurisdiction. If empowered enjoin federal statute, three judges hear 2282, 1253.3 Accordingly, have debated possessed power 205(g) Act,4 405(g), whether, 205(h),5 405(h), available mandamus s 1361,6 Administrative Procedure 701 et seqi7[n] 10 think unnecessary, resolve details these difficult perhaps close arguments. substantive questions raised determined 651.8 disposition noonger sense. 11 Assuming correctly convened, appropriate disposition, plainly would be affirm Secretary. Assuming, hand, lack needlessly dismiss appeal. from erroneously district retain " 'to corrective may limitations' 1253 imposes. Bailey Patterson, 369 31, 34, 82 549, 551, 512 (1962), quoting Gully Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 16, 18, 54 565, 566, 78 L.Ed. 1088 (1934). What done recently, most cases where previously unsettled do imply statutorily otherwise compelled vacate remand entry fresh decree taken appeals. Gonzalez Employees Credit Union, 419 90, 101, 289, 295, 249 example. case, rendered issues insubstantial much even consider remand. See, E. g., Hicks Miranda, 332, 343-345, 2281, 2287, 223 (1975); Hagans Lavine, 415 528, 536-538, 1372, 1378, 39 577 Thus, there point remanding enable See McLucas DeChamplain, 421 21, 1365, 43 699 (1975).9 12 evident whichever undertake, effect same. follows need theoretical case. past, reserved resolved party. Navy Avrech, 676, 3039, 1033 original reason granting certiorari issue. United States Augenblick, 393 348, 349-352, 89 529, 21 537 (1969). Although desirable all perceive why proceed insubstantial. Cf. U.S., S.Ct., 1371. Making assumption, then, without deciding, cause established, basis 13 ordered. 14 STEVENS, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 15 363, held, Sub silentio, raising raises. 523 F.2d 689, 693 (CA7 1975). 1974 1150, implicitly held convened. Ante, 529 3. 17 Today enters affirmance enter unless For injunction Required. I believe claim, am satisfied 18 authorizes claimant commence "civil action" obtain review adverse decision. litigant. Secretary's rested provision challenged unconstitutional, U.S.49, 762, 764, 2465, 522. own initiative opinion, lower courts,1 himself,2 uniformly if should hold statute relief. uniform understanding correct. 19 argues, superfluous individual plaintiff, since can "affirming, modifying, reversing" argues reasoning applies actions, unnamed members prerequisites 205(g). Alternatively, contends will proper action, event, certified 20 Even assuming equitable unavailable suing behalf, conclusions respect actions general, particular, follow. Indeed, proves too much. Injunctive similar expressly authorized Congress intended allow other. suggests distinction between reversing modifying requiring payment persons: official disobeys Secretary, cannot contempt issuance compelling compliance order; injunction, immediately.3 Surely intend provide reluctant officials means delay remote eventuality they might feel bound court. breadth virtually identical effect. Nor accept permits "any final made after plaintiff) party," manifests congressional intent judicial case-by-case basis. fail see, adjudication fully limiting those 205(g).4 definition, persons failure meet requirement attack5 record sufficiently permit review. Once identified records, expeditiously.6 defined include satisfy specified 205(g), overbreadth deprive it.7 prevent later appropriate, narrower class. Jiminez F.2d, 695.8 22 lies 23 dissent reasons stated my dissenting 516, 2767, reverse Section survivorship A intestacy laws domicile inherit personal property parent, whose illegitimacy results formal defect parents' purported marriage ceremony, acknowledged writing son daughter judicially decreed (during lifetime) such, deemed adopted individual, relieved proving dependency. 202(d)(1), 202(d)(3), 216(e), 216(h) (2), 216(h)(3)(C)(i), 402(d)(3), 416(e), 416(h)(2), 416(h)(3)(C)(i) IV). categories, (3)(C)(ii), 416(h)(3)(C)(ii). generally definition does appear formalized judgment. 59. contrast situation 1252 Court's statute's reads pertinent part: "Any party, irrespective amount controversy, civil . Such shall resides As part answer file copy transcript including evidence findings complained based. enter, pleadings record, affirming, rehearing." 205(h) "The decisions binding individuals parties hearing. No reviewed person, tribunal, governmental agency except herein provided. States, officer employee thereof (§ 1331 sections) Title recover arising (subchapter Act)." 756 3, 2462. initiating observed general 1331, 1361, vesting courts "in nature compel perform duty owed plaintiff." 596, 598 Solicitor General ruling excludes source determinations. reasons, terms specifies rehearing," say him, moreover, structure place. although suit sound certified, inasmuch allegation applications benefits; aspects Supra, cited. remains, appropriately exercised claimant's rebuttal language withdraw inherent equity powers, enjoin, issued, statutes. respective statements preserved along contention. pressed explicitly abandoned. Tr. Oral Arg. 5-6. Judge enjoined Art. 134 Uniform Code Military Justice, 934, convening infirmity Article plain. (1962). 1252, propriety proceeding questioned. originally ordinarily Flemming Nestor, 603, 607, 80 1367, 1369, 1435 (1960); FHA Darlington, Inc., 977, 77 381, (1957). Concluding, purpose served deciding originally, intervening sustaining us, directing dismissal. 353 1356, 1358 (ND Ill.1973), grounds nom. 363; Maracle 348 234, 235, 237 (WDNY 1972) (three-judge court); Williams 347 544, 548, 552 (WDNC court). repeatedly Act. Jurisdictional Statement Diaz, O.T.1973, 73-1046, p. 2; O.T.1974, 74-214, Wiesenfeld, 73-1892, 2. here, moved affirm, want jurisdiction, though greater than now. 73-5598, 2, Motion Affirm 1. Brief Appellee 72-6609, 33-35. These are: "(1) hearing; (2) commencement 60 days mailing notice (or allow); filing plaintiff's residence principal place business." 763-764, last requirements waived entirely partially less literal compliance. 763-767, 2466; Eldridge, 424 319, 326-332, 893, 898-901, 47 18; 426 67, 75-77, 1883, 1889-1890, 48 478. "to eligible insurance 402(d)(1) qualify solely 416(h)(3)(C)(ii) supported date death." 1121 (Md.1973). broadly defined, narrowed 7, Infra. "the law common predominate affecting members." 23(b)(3). probably assert independent share However, succeeds claims simply moot. separate 23(b) (2). F.Supp., 1120. contrary, relying Salfi allegations deprived entire supra, 2466. ultimately merits. 767-785, 2468. subsequently pointed reached. 71-72, n.3, 1887. read preclude narrowly action. grant subclass appealable asserts limited "numerosity" 23(a)(1): (must be) numerous joinder impracticable." But matter, surely Never brought. offers justification broad assertion. advanced colorable accord Rule 23, directly turn question. rule increase burden litigation breaking point, particularly affects dispositions

Category: 1