Court Opinion

ID: 9483480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:21:33.122007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:38.317347
License: Public Domain

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree that we must review this case under a rational basis standard. I write separately because I disagree that the basis the government has advanced is rational. I concur because the government has adopted its fallacious reasoning from our prior decision in this case, Martin v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir.1990) (as amended), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 648, 116 L.Ed.2d 665 (1991) (Martin I).
In Martin I we found that 20 C.F.R. § 416.1123(b)(1) does not violate the language or intent of Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. Id. Our decision permitted the Social Security Administration (SSA) to deny Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to Velma Martin, forcing her to live on $386 per month. In addition to her $386 per month, Martin has a pension from the Railroad Retirement Board (Board) that our decision permitted the SSA to calculate as “income” under 20 C.F.R. § 416.1123(b)(1) despite the fact that this income was, as far as Martin was concerned, invisible, inaccessible, indeed non-existent, in that it was being withheld from her to make up a prior overpayment by the Board. As we construed the applicable statute and regulations, when a debt is owed to a benefit program other than SSI, the debtor may be ineligible for SSI entirely, because reduction of the debt constitutes phantom income. 42 U.S.C. § 1383(b)(l)(B)(ii); 20 C.F.R. § 416.-1123(b)(1). But when the debt is owed to SSI itself, the debt reduction is not, for practical purposes, considered income — the debtor is guaranteed at least ninety percent of the regular SSI monthly benefit. 20 C.F.R. § 416.571. In Martin I we rejected Martin’s argument that Congress must have intended the aged, blind, and disabled who owe debts to other benefit programs to be given enough money to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves at the minimum level necessary to keep body and soul together. Id. at 1278. Whether or not we should have reached that conclusion, the reason we gave for our holding was, in my view, patently erroneous. We said that if we accept Martin’s argument, “SSI funds will be used to partially subsidize a claimant’s debt to an outside program whenever the rate of benefits being withheld exceeds 10 percent.” Id. On that basis, we overruled the district court and rejected her claim.
Martin now challenges the statute and its complementary regulation under the Equal Protection Clause. The government insists that its policies are rational. Relying on our earlier opinion, the government argues that if Martin’s equal protection argument is upheld, SSI funds will “subsidize” her debt to the Board. The fact is, of course, that Martin must repay her debt to the Board whether she gets SSI benefits or not. The difference that SSI benefits would make to her is that she would be able to repay her debt while still being able to eat instead of while starving; or that she would be able to repay her debt while living in an apartment instead of on the street. The Board deducts the overpayment no matter what SSI pays. Thus, there is clearly no “subsidy” involved. Nevertheless, the statement the government relies on was not dictum. It formed the basis of our decision.
The “subsidy” argument is the only one the government advances to justify its policy. The government does not rely on the other arguments set forth in the majority’s opinion. Counsel for the government was asked at oral argument whether any basis other than the “subsidy” contention exists for finding the policy rational. Counsel said that there was none. Because the government’s argument is appropriate under Martin I, I am required to concur; nevertheless, I believe it to be without a rational basis.