Court Opinion

ID: 9842024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 20:12:26.027665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:10.254275
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Brennan,
concurring in the result.
We concur in the Court’s conclusion that § 1611 (f) of the Social Security Act is constitutional. We do not, however, understand the Court to imply that welfare legislation not involving a fundamental interest or suspect classification is subject to a lesser standard of review than the traditional rational basis test. To sustain classifications in welfare legis*179lation that are “arbitrary,” ante, at 174, so long as they are not “wholly irrational,” ante, at 177, would be inconsistent with the settled principle that the “standard by which [welfare] legislation . . . must be judged 'is not a toothless one.’ ” Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U. S. 181, 185 (1976), quoting Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 510 (1976).