Document: 434 U.S. 47 98 S.Ct. 95 54 L.Ed.2d 228 Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellant,v.John JOBST. No. 76-860. Argued Oct. 4, 1977. Decided Nov. 8, Syllabus Provisions the Social Security Act specifying that secondary benefits under received by a disabled dependent child covered wage earner shall terminate when marries an individual who is not entitled to Act, even though permanently disabled, held violate principle equality embodied in Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment. Pp. 50-58. (a) The general rule entitlement child's statutory terminates upon marriage rational. Congress, lieu requiring individualized proof dependency on case-by-case basis, could assume marital status relevant test probable dependency, married person being less likely than unmarried be his parents for support. 52-54. (b) exception provided children marry individuals likewise That exception, which reliable indicator hardship, requires no inquiry into degrees need or periodic review determine continued entitlement. Moreover, Congress reasonably take one step eliminate hardship caused general-marriage without at same time accomplishing its entire objective. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 483, 75 461, 99 L.Ed. 563. 54-58. 368 F.Supp. 909, reversed. Stephen L. Urbanczyk, Dept. Justice, Washington D.C., appellant, pro hac vice, special leave Court. With him brief were Sol. Gen. Wade Hampton McCree, Asst. Attys. Barbara Babock, William Ranter. Jerome D. Riffel, Kansas City, Mo., appellee. Mr. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion 1 question presented whether has power require social security spouse disabled. Answering negative, District Court 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(d)(1)(D) 402(d)(5) deprive appellee property due process law. Jobst Richardson, 909. We reverse. 2 been cerebral palsy since birth 1932. He qualified insurance 1957, several months after father died. In 1970 he another victim. Since wife was federal Act,1 statute required benefits.2 3 brought this suit Secretary's action.3 violated applicable Federal Government virtue Amendment, Bolling Sharpe, 347 497, 74 693, 884 because all beneficiaries are treated alike they persons. Beneficiaries other continue receive whereas those nonbeneficiaries lose their permanently. court distinction irrational. F.Supp., 913. 4 appealed directly 28 § 1252. Noting had become newly enacted authorizing supplemental income aged, blind, disabled,4 remanded case reconsideration light program. Weinberger Jobst, 419 811, 26, 38. reviewed new program, concluded it relevance issues case, reinstated original judgment. again appealed, we noted jurisdiction. 429 1089, 97 1096, 51 534. 5 Although focused consequences between two persons, argues classification much broader. therefore first describe scheme, then consider validity requirement payable earner's marriage, finally decide such invalidated limited marriages persons both receiving benefits. 6 * As originally 1935, authorized monthly benefit earners least 65 years old death estate died earlier age. 49 Stat. 622-624. 1939 created wives, children, widows, earners. See 53 1362, 1364-1366. intended provide with protection against economic occasioned loss Mathews De Castro, 181, 185-186, 431, 434-435, 50 389. Generally speaking, therefore, categories defined include presumed death, disability, retirement. 7 Specifically, as available only unmarried, 18 1364. 23 father's would have eligible Act. Under statute, benefit, like widows parents, terminated marriage. 8 1956, enlarged class who, disability began before age 18.5 For beyond but, benefits, 9 1958, adopted amendment basis Jobst's constitutional attack. if also 72 1030-1031. A similar dispensation granted widowers, divorced parents.6 each survives beneficiary, but any marriage—even unable beneficiary support—is terminating event unaffected 1958 amendment. 10 It failure create larger do found II 11 provision challenged part complex scheme designed administer trust fund financed, large part, taxes levied primary fund. predicated her relationship contributing earner. If requirements eligibility met, amount unrelated actual beneficiary. See, e. g., U.S., S.Ct., members family earnings; simply welfare program generally benefiting needy Califano Goldfarb, 430 199, 213-214, 1021, 1030, 270 (opinion Brennan, J.). 12 Nor made either sufficient necessary condition every case.7 Instead elected use simple criteria, status, dependency.8 over neither nor student denied assumed normally parents. There about legislate factual assumptions. General rules essential magnitude administered modicum efficiency, inevitably produce seemingly arbitrary some cases. Salfi, 422 749, 776, 2457, 2472, 45 522. 13 Of course, may define benefited reference irrationally differentiates identically situated Differences race, religion, political affiliation rationally justify difference differences totally irrelevant economically another. But different character. 14 Both tradition common experience support conclusion marks important change status. Traditionally, creates attendant responsibilities, modifies pre-existing relationships bride groom respective families. Frequently, financial independence go hand hand. Nevertheless, there can assumption unmarried. 15 rational obtained married, satisfied applied cases this. 185, 434, 389; cited 768-770, 2468-2469. rendered invalid might otherwise deterred did burdened thereby.9 cannot criticized merely unthinking response stereotyped generalizations traditionally disadvantaged group,10 attempt interfere individual's freedom make decision marriage.11 16 rule, unquestionably valid. III 17 remains invalidates carving out beneficiaries. does classification, narrow described identified distinguishing (1) (2) true former category more favorably latter category. great correct conclude, did, affected legislative wholly 19 favored Amendment subject burdens disabled.12 broad must judged characteristics typical classes rather focusing selected, atypical examples. When so judged, limits 20 reflects judgment will termination submits, agree, reasonable ameliorate severity protecting spouses from dual effected.13 21 argues, however, reason applies equally situation. urges just avoids another, attacks underinclusive.14 persuaded, that, benign purpose encompasses case,15 legitimate reasons placed it. Richardson Belcher, 404 78, 92 254, 30 231. itself, administer. need.16 necessity beneficiaries' apply, hardship. introducing concepts administration fund,17 firm toward goal eliminating objective piece legislation. 489, 465, Even wiser step, right direction adverse impact Jobsts. 22 true, urges, beneficiary's desire marry, suitors welcome others. unless should entirely repudiate event, criticism apply rule. No suggests motivated antagonism partners encompassed exception. Congress' remedy particular injustice occurred simultaneously lost exercises share treatment 24 25 ordered. Mrs. assistance Division Welfare State Missouri, 401-432 (1970 ed. Supp. V). Section 202 623, amended, 402 V), provides pertinent part: "(d)(1) Every (as section 416(e) title) old-age dies fully currently insured individual, child— "(A) filed application "(B) (i) attained full-time 22, (ii) 423(d) "(C) individual— "shall month, beginning month August 1950 becomes ending preceding whichever following occurs— "(D) marries, "(5) eighteen marries— subsection (a), (b), (e), (f), (g), (h) 423(a) title, subsection, "such shall, notwithstanding provisions paragraph (s) section, . "(s)(2) [S]o subsectio[n] (d)(5) precedes semicolon, child, referred therein, ." exhausted administrative remedies. hearing examiner favor, ruling denial unconstitutional. Appeals Council reversed; agency constitutionality administers. Title XVI amended Amendments 1972, 86 1465, 1381 et seq. ed., 1956 replaced "under 70 807. raised begin 22. 1343-1345. 1030-1032. House Report explained change: "When person's present qualify based earnings spouse. ordinarily [Your committee's bill] these providing where mother's, widow's, widower's, parent's, childhood mother's benefits." H.R.Rep. 2288, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., (1958), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 4218, 4233. doubt many distant relatives actually Similarly, 19-year-old remain themselves while younger brothers sisters self-sufficient. idea changes expressed throughout Most remarried. 402(b)(1)(C) (divorced wives); 402(e)(1)(A) (widows); 402(f)(1)(A) (widowers); 402(g)(1)(A) (surviving mothers); 402(h)(1)(C) (parents). exceptions, 402(e)(4) (f)(5), remarriage end 402(b)(1)(H) 402(e)(1), 402(f)(1), 402(g)(1), 402(h)(1). excepted 402(b)(3), 402(e)(3), 402(f)(4), 402(g)(3), 402(h)(4). This proposition questioned "As premise undoubtedly correctly concludes payments marriage." Brief Appellee 21. Wiesenfeld, 420 636, 1225, 43 514; Jimenez Weinberger, 417 628, 94 2496, 41 363; Loving Virginia, 388 1, 87 1817, 1010. Whalen Roe, 589, 599-600, 603, 869, 876-877, 878, 64. course constructing system necessarily deals intimacies life. government seeks foist orthodoxy unwilling banning, criminally prosecuting nonconforming marriages. supra. recognized brings changed responsibilities. seen, burden beneficiaries; parents—all And although singled analysis nonbeneficiaries, not; able-bodied woman Finally, extended Like affects well children. n. fact characteristically signifies parental justifies marries. dependents' signify words, justifying characteristic class, rests predicate. possess commonly class. sustain attack, recognize unusual inflicted him, follow Cf. Stanton Stanton, 421 7, 17-18, 1373, 1379, 688; 501, 717, 723. vice stems amendment; cured invalidating enlarging choice involves legislation having nation-wide impact, equities control. Developments Law—Equal Protection, 82 Harv.L.Rev. 1065, 1136-1137 (1969). enlarge fashion need, disability. relief marrying "totally disabled" spouse, rationale nonbeneficiary. note, compelling nonbeneficiaries. Secondary sets thus suffer greater couple sacrifices set very beneficiaries, showed reluctance determinations allocating amendments abolished prove Pub.L. 85-840 306, 1030. "deemed dependent" "the older parent." (1958). logical position permit determination need. sought independent establishing separate serve ineligible Supplemental Income Program federally funded through Administration. Its plainly stated 92-231, p. 147 (1971): "[S]ome people age, blindness able work relatively small Contributory insurance, complemented effective program." became soon instituted. On remand parties stipulated couple's $20 restored.

Category: 1