Document: 476 U.S. 340 106 S.Ct. 1881 90 L.Ed.2d 316 Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellantv.Buenta M. OWENS et al. No. 84-1905. Argued Feb. 26, 1986. Decided May 19, Syllabus Certain provisions the Social Security Act in effect between 1979 1983 authorized payment survivor's benefits to a wage earner's widowed spouse who remarried after age 60 but not similarly situated divorced spouse. After being administratively denied under these because she had remarried, appellee widow filed class action Federal District Court, challenging constitutionality provisions. The court upheld challenge, reasoning that Congress 1977 chosen treat surviving spouses same manner upon death, there was no logical basis for distinguishing two classes individuals their subsequent remarriage. Held: question did violate equal protection component Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. Pp. 345-350. (a) When decided create some exceptions rule which would lose entitlement remarriage, it required take an all-or-nothing approach instead valid reasons proceeding more cautiously. Faced with concerns about increase ensue if remarriage were completely eliminated, reasonably could decide concentrate limited funds where need likely be greatest. 346-348. (b) Because enter into level dependency on account as widows or widowers, rational groups differently Any inference both entitled benefits, viewed equally dependent earner, is belied by history Act. 348-350. Reversed remanded. POWELL, J., delivered opinion BURGER, C.J., WHITE, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, joined, post, p. 350. BLACKMUN, 354. Carolyn B. Kuhl, Washington, D.C., appellant. Gill Deford, Los Angeles, Cal., appellees. Justice POWELL Court. 1 from 60, this case whether those violated 2 * (Act) originally provided only primary qualified earners. later secondary wives, widows, children, parents earner. At time, other beneficiaries marriage. In 1950, extended husbands subject restriction. 1958, created exception so widower married individual received Act, neither forfeit benefits. 3 Until 1965, including outlived former (divorced widows), eligible wives widows. year, amended § 202(b) extend wife's wife recipient been her husband at least 20 years, than one-half support him agreement order make substantial contributions support. Pub.L. 89-97, 308(a), 79 Stat. 375-376.1 Divorced also applied widowers. amendments, however, changed new over someone receive certain he Instead, reduced half §§ 333(a)(1) (b)(1), 403, 404. 4 1977, again relaxed provision allowing them unreduced they 60. effective date amendment 1979. 95-216, 336(a)(3), (b)(3), (c)(1), 91 1547.2 But retained until generally barred receiving See 202(b)(1)(C), 202(e)(1)(A), (e)(1)(F). present involves temporary disparity 5 As result pair Court sex discrimination opinions invalidated portions Ambrose v. Califano, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. ¶ 17,702 (Ore.1980); Oli ¢s343¢s 15,244 (ND Cal.1977), Services (Secretary) promulgated regulations providing widowers husband's extent 44 Fed.Reg. 34480, 34483-34484 (1979); see CFR 404.331, 404.336 (1985). incorporate regulatory changes. 98-21, 301(b)(1), 97 111. bill, remarry are II 6 Appellee Buenta Owens Russell Judd 1937 1968. 1978, when 61, Kenneth Owens. died June 1982. On July 30, 1982, widow's Judd's earnings widow. Her claim August 27, remarried. She sought administrative reconsideration, contending statutory denying unconstitutional. denied. Subsequently, entered stipulating disputed issue time 42 U.S.C. 402(e)(1)(A), (e)(4). parties stipulated that, relevant provisions, Owens' right established. Based agreement, waived any further review. April 1983, United States Central California, represent nationwide spouses.3 7 December 23, rejected constitutional challenge. Applying rational-basis standard review, reasoned justified taking one step extending While motion alter amend judgment Rule Civil Procedure 59 pending, amendments went effect, all otherwise members became monthly beginning January 1984. certified plaintiffs' class, consisting 1978 1984.4 8 October 5, 1984, reversed its prior ruling merits held challenged agreed rationally assume income deceased earner spouses. It reasoned, death appealed directly pursuant 28 1252. We noted probable jurisdiction, Heckler Owens, 474 899, 223, 88 223 now reverse. III 9 faces unusually difficult task distribution program massive one, requires many distinctions among while making allocations finite fund. context, our review deferential. "Governmental decisions spend money improve general public welfare way another 'not confided courts. discretion belongs Congress, unless choice clearly wrong, display arbitrary power, exercise judgment.' " Mathews De Castro, 429 181, 185, 431, 434, 50 389 (1976), quoting Helvering Davis, 301 619, 640, 57 904, 908, 81 1307 (1937). explained Flemming Nestor, 363 603, 611, 80 1367, 1372, 1435 (1960): 10 "Particularly we deal withholding noncontractual benefit social such [Social Security], must recognize can thought interpose bar statute manifests patently classification, utterly lacking justification." classification examined light principles, cannot said made irrational. 11 have previously "[t]he beneficiary predicated his relationship contributing earner." Califano Jobst, 434 47, 52, 98 95, 98, 54 228 (1977). determining scope does allow "individualized proof case-by-case basis." Ibid. "has elected use simple criteria, marital status, determine dependency." particular, has used status guide earner: "The idea marriage changes expressed throughout Act." Id., n. 8, S.Ct., 99, 8. One example assumption Congress' original decision terminate beneficiaries, spouses, remarried.5 subsequently imposed terminated This based altered validity Jobst. 53, 99. 12 constitutionally obligated continue beneficiary. nevertheless chose do so, gradual steps. full Finally, provide may Appellees complain failure 13 consistently recognized addressing complex problems legislature "may itself phase problem seems most acute legislative mind." Williamson Lee Optical Co., 348 483, 489, 75 461, 465, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955). That precisely what done case. rule, approach. proceed doing so. 14 House version bill contained complete elimination terminating H.R.Rep. 95-702, pt. 1, pp. 47-48 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4155. first year operation alone 670,000 pre-1977 system,6 costing $1.3 billion additional each year. Ibid.7 concerns, "concentrate [was] greatest." Boles, 443 282, 296, 2767, 2775, 61 541 (1979). presumably depend financial feasible rather 15 adjustments system entitlements necessarily categories avoided sweeping incremental ones. A invalidate attempts cautiously awarding increased might deter increases all. impose 'constitutional straitjacket.' U.S., Jefferson Hackney, 406 535, 546, 92 1724, 1731, 32 285 (1972). Jobst: 16 "Congress firm toward goal eliminating hardship caused without accomplishing entire objective piece legislation. 489 [75 563]. Even wiser larger step, direction adverse impact persons like Jobsts." 57-58, 101. 17 drew reasonable line process soon beneficiaries. B 18 correctly Castro less resources held, identically logic Court's position depends showing distinguish Apparently inferred Such 19 began wives' focused group whose marriages ended "too old build up security record even [they] find job." 213, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 107-108 (1965). To end, years him. 1972 dropped requirement then, 20-year requirement. treatment basic eligibility rules During lawsuit, precondition met 21 These requirements demonstrate adhered assumption, approved divorce normally reduces fact awards once mean equivalent view 10-year-marriage lesser dependency, still sufficient justify extension Presumably concluded sufficiently point conclude longer appropriate. views consistent taken IV 22 reversed, remanded proceedings opinion. 23 ordered. 24 whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. 25 demonstrates enviable ability discern rationality none. majority's efforts imagine plausible scenarios obscure truth: absolutely evidence deciding allowed I believe distinction treated respects survive scrutiny Amendment's Clause, dissent. 26 Report Committee Ways Means drawback scheme then force: 27 "Present law provides, general, (or remarriage) worker's spouse, parent, child prevents terminates record. For example, remarries before get long married. If terminated; gets either (which getting) current (if beneficiary), whichever higher. Benefits payable young "Your committee especially concerned older (and spouses). Accordingly, your recommended eliminate factor affecting amounts. Specifically, committee's . ., child, cause reduction aged widower's insurance benefits." 4204-4205. 29 Senate address Committee's concerns. And tersely records discussions conferees Houses issue: 30 recedes, retain part House-passed prevent 60." H.R.Conf.Rep. 95-837, 73 4319. 31 compromise thus produced suit. Those historical matter, suspect characterize drawn product "take time," ante, ----, reflect "the needs today's society," supra, 4. However, classifications bear legitimate governmental purpose. Had accommodated House's reform goals Senate's conservative outlook area passing giving born odd-numbered days calendar, surely strike down here particular 1977. 33 Recognizing enough label station road sensible destination, argues groups. rationalization never it, hinted it. contains survivor survivor, indicate motivated assumption. 34 majority fill gap assuming perceived former, latter, perhaps believed Yet hardly indication satisfy 10-year meeting purpose ever attempted articulate difference justifying different treatment. 35 "When suggested ingenuity government lawyer litigating statute, reviewing presented much policy absence." Schweiker Wilson, 450 221, 244, 101 1074, 1087, 67 186 (1981) (POWELL, dissenting); Railroad Retirement Board Fritz, 449 166, 184, 453, 464, 66 368 (1980) (BRENNAN, dissenting). absence clear statement purposes doom always actually Legislature. 188, 466 drawing desire Houses. With help Government's lawyers, tried hard come hypothetical justification action. think job. 36 37 agree MARSHALL failed identify anything, before, since belong family units unconnected Cf. (1977) ("marriage event marks important change economic status" "not creates modifies pre-existing relationships"). 1972, eliminated show specified husband, 20-years-of-marriage 92-603, 114(a), (b), 86 1348. years. Dorothy L. 1978. He old. 1982 wife, died. His initial stage reconsideration 1983. reached waive suit argument virtually identical wife's. already ruled favor suit, pending. consolidated wife. during pendency moved substituted case, granted February 24, 1985. appellees raise arguments, discussion subsumed disputes propriety certification conclusion waiver named waiving exhaustion class. reject claim, reach issue. strict person 85-840, 307(b), (c), 72 1031. addition expanded included children. contemporaneous reveal portion figure attributable budgetary report estimated cost $50 million separate out subcategories. free following closely tied annual fiscal concern.

Category: 1