Court Opinion

ID: 9426189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:03.89553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:59.476095
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas,
dissenting.
I agree with Mr. Justice Brennan that because there is clearly jurisdiction the Court's extended discussion of the subject is unwarranted.
On the merits, I believe that the main problem with these legislatively created presumptions is that they frequently invade the right to a jury trial. See Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 473 (1943) (Black, J., concurring). The present law was designed to bar payment of certain Social Security benefits when the purpose of the marriage was to obtain such benefits. Whether this was the aim of a particular marriage is a question of fact, to be decided by the jury in an appropriate case. I therefore would vacate and remand the case to give Mrs. Salfi the right to show that her *786marriage did not offend the statutory scheme, that it was not a sham.