Legal Document

417 U.S. 628 94 Supreme Court Reporter 2496. 41 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 363 Eugenio and Alicia JIMENEZ, etc., Appellants,v.Caspar W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education Welfare. Number 72—6609. Argued March 18, 1974. Decided June 19, Syllabus Under the Social Security Act illegitimate children are deemed entitled to disability insurance benefits without any showing that they in fact dependent upon their disabled parent if state law permits them inherit from wage-earner parent; illegitimacy results solely formal, nonobvious defects parents' ceremonial marriage; or legitimated accordance with law. An child unable meet foregoing conditions can qualify only contributed child's support lived him prior parent's disability, 42 Code KF62 § 416(h)(3)(B); is conditions, statute bars opportunity establish entitlement thereto. Ramon Jimenez, a resident Illinois (which does not allow nonlegitimated father), wage earner covered by who became October 1963. Thereafter, Jimenez applied for appellants, two his were born after onset disability. The claims denied since did requirements 416(h)(3)(B) other qualifying provisions Act. Appellants brought this action review denial benefits. A three-judge District upheld statutory classification as being rationally related proper governmental interest avoiding spurious claims. Held: Title 416(h)(3)(B), part scheme applicable illegitimates, contravenes Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment equal protection laws guaranteed thereby. Pp. 631—638. (a) '(T)he Equal Protection (is violated by) discriminatory relating status birth where . justified no legitimate interest, compelling otherwise.' Weber versus Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 164, 176, 92 1400, 31 768. Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 90 1153, 25 491, distinguished. 631—634. (b) primary purpose contested provision provide dependents not, appellee contends, replace actually enjoyed before 634—635. (c) complete bar imposed afterborn illegitimates appellants' position, reasonably valid preventing potential same both. Even might be classified on basis whether parents, Act's definition subclasses 'overinclusive' it some legitimated, inherit, because defect marriage but parent. Conversely, 'underinclusive' conclusively excludes subclass are, fact, 635—637. (d) judgment vacated case remanded appellants an claim eligibility 'children' claimant eligible under 637—638. 353 F.Supp. 1356, remanded. Jane G. Stevens, Chicago, Ill., appellants. Danny Julian Boggs, Bowling Green, Ky., appellee. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 Northern constitutionality which provides certain children, cannot Act, may obtain if, wageearner shown have disability.1 held statute's Richardson, 1361 (1973). We noted probable jurisdiction. 414 1061, 567, 38 467. 2 relevant facts dispute. April 1963, Some years time, separated wife began living Elizabeth Hernandez, whom he never married. Three them, Magdalena, August 13, Eugenio, January 1965, Alicia, February 24, 1968. These all lives; has formally acknowledged supported cared birth, been sole caretaker mother left household late Since parents married, these father children. Ill.Ann.Stat., chapter 3, 12 (Supp.1974). 3 On 21, 1968, father, filed application behalf three Magdalena was found issue presented respect her claim. denied, however, ground 416(h)(3), neither paternity had affirmed through evidence domicile father's disability.2 In respects receive benefits, applications proscribed at time 4 urge based so-called 'suspect classification' illegitimacy. Like race national origin, argue, characteristic determined accident birth; condition beyond control subjects stigma inferiority badge opprobrium. need reach argument, context enough we note, 768 (1972): 5 'The expressed ages society's condemnation irresponsible liaisons bonds marriage. But visiting head infant illogical unjust. Moreover, imposing disabilities contrary basic concept our system legal burdens should bear relationship individual responsibility wrongdoing. Obviously, responsible penalizing ineffectual—as well unjust—way deterring Courts powerless prevent social opprobrium suffered hapless enable us strike down Id., 175—176, S.Ct., 1406. 6 urges uphold controlled Court's recent ruling 491 (1970), noted: 7 'In area economics welfare, State violate merely classifications made its imperfect. If 'reasonable basis,' offend Constitution simply 'is mathematical nicety practice inequality.' Lindsley Natural Carbonic Gas 220 61, 78, 337, 340, 55 L.Ed. 369. problems government practical ones justify, do require, rough accommodations—illogical, be, unscientific.' Metropolis Theatre company City 228 69 70, 33 441, 443, 57 730. 'A discrimination will set aside conceived justify it.' McGowan Maryland, 366 420, 426, 81 1101, 1105, 393.' 485, 1161. 8 However, involved attack Maryland's Aid Families Dependent Children program provided aid family's standard need, limited maximum grant $250 per family, regardless size, thereby reducing capita allowance large families. AFDC welfare "scheme cooperative federalism" 'starting point analysis must recognition federal gives each great latitude dispensing available funds.' 478, 1158. This special deference approach necessary because, '(g)iven finite resources, choice either families adequately others less adequately, give sufficient family.' 479, 1159. Here, contrast, there supporting contention would significantly impair trust fund necessitate reduction scope persons benefited contrary, persistently maintained lost earning power, excluding recovery designed ensure those benefit payments. Accepting view conclude exclusion achieve allocation resources and, extent, distinguishable controlling. 9 As noted, earner.3 maintains denies whose wedding ceremony, 'likely' class, possess requisite economic dependency entitle such open door disability; unless experienced actual earner's allowed recover. read purpose. clear becomes earner, 416(h)(2) (A); marriage, 416(h)(2)(B); law, 402(d)(3)(A). Similarly, wage-earning become §§ 402(d)(1) (3). 10 examples just mentioned, 'deemed dependent' virtue derive parallel right presumption Their dilemma compounded prove order 'claim' hence, eligibility. 416(h)(3) (B). absolute '(t)o unscrupulous person, prevents realizing gain mere formality acknowledgment collusive suit herself desirous additional cash.' F.Supp., 1361. 11 From what outlined emerges divided into subclassifications statute. One up intestacy laws, formal second subclassification includes fall within one categories recognize prevention subclass, defined statute, legally established even though, here, acknowledged. possibility parentage fabricated greater when until It follow, blanket conclusive Assuming claimant, serve purposes deny discriminate between distinction exactly both subclasses. 13 contend necessarily universally true gave so. Nor suggest assumption statutorily Indeed, in, ever family setting parent, Thus, record, stand footing, both; hence presumptively former due process Amendment. Schneider Rusk, 377 163, 168, 84 1187, 1190, 218 (1964); Bolling Sharpe, 347 497, 499, 74 693, 694, 98 884 (1954). 14 Secretary, relying validity exclusion, undertake challenge assertion lives, birth. Accordingly, opportunity, consistent opinion, 15 Vacated 16 Remanded. 17 REHNQUIST, dissenting. 18 N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions frankly find perplexing three-legged stool. holding clearly founded notions protection, see ante, 637, speaks specifically improper 'discrimination.' Yet strong overtones well, times appearing pay homage still novel, think unsupportable, theory 'irrebuttable presumptions' process. At seems real problem Government's failure build adequate evidentiary record challenged legislation. result rather impressionistic determination Congress' efforts cope entitlement, while preserving most likely deserving, satisfactory numbers agree nor decision. 19 perhaps difficult understand. apparently finds resolve question constitutes classification,' noting instead "the (Weber 1406, (1972).)' Ante, 632. (Emphasis added.) statement thought stage decision striking legislation legitimates illegitimates. then leaves issue, finding unconstitutional 'discriminate(s) ..' 636. Whatever rationale giving form stricter scrutiny vanishes alleged classes Such evaluated according traditional principle forth (1970): 'If inequality." (Citation omitted.) 20 rejection strongly smacks than concepts. states '(a)ssuming benefits,' 636 (emphasis added), indicates 'underinclusive.' According Court, 'some children' 'are parent' illegitimates' get 'are, parent.' 637. my another guise. See Cleveland Board LaFleur, 632, 791, 39 52 (1974). very making legislative decisions govern society whole means individuals treated favorably different classification. stated last Term Vlandis Kline, 412 462, 93 2230, 2241, 37 63 (1973) (dissenting opinion): '(L)iterally thousands statutes create permanent duration, perfect, improved individualized determinations invalidate out preference unworkable consideration theoretically more perfect. 21 There also hints Government failed classifications. Thus distinguishes supra, respected State's saying: 'Here, Act.' 633. obvious increase number recipients additionally deplete fixed fund, stranger notion present every legislature chooses make. correctly, seem example, compile begin specified age, requiring statistics show (in cases?) age atlesser ages. proposition certainly far removed principles judgment. 393 (1961): nothing language suggests me courtrooms forums round hearings whenever later challenged. 22 believe correctly concluded rest rational basis, dissent. 416(h)(3). provides, essence, (42 402(d)(3)), personal property insured's 416(h)(2)(A)), invalid 416(h)(2)(B)), further parental support. applicant claimant's period began, categories, House-Senate Conference Committee Report 1965 Amendments 111 Cong.Rec. 18387 (1965); Advisory Council Security, Status Program Recommendations Improvement 67 (1965).

Classification Label: 1