Court Opinion

ID: 9432069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:34:07.943786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:32.128118
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
Although the answer to the question presented by this case is not quite as clear to me as it is to Justice Blackmun, I believe he has the better of the argument. If one puts aside legal terminology and considers ordinary English usage, Social Security benefits paid to the surviving child of a deceased wage earner are reasonably characterized as a form of “child support payments”—indeed, they are quite obviously payments made to support children. Moreover, respondents’ interpretation of Title IV of the Social Security Act effectuates congressional intent: If a $50 portion of Social Security payments is disregarded when a family’s eligibility for aid is determined, children with equal need will be more likely to receive equal aid. Finally, the interpretation achieves this parity in a way that serves the disregard provision’s purpose—fairly inferred from legislative history—of mitigating the hardships imposed by the 1984 amendment that required families applying for aid to count child support payments as available income.
Thus, Title II children’s benefit payments are fairly encompassed by both the language and the purpose of the disregard provision. It may be that Congress did not sharply focus on the specific problem presented by this case; the statutory terminology suggests as much. Yet, this fact does not seem to me sufficient reason for refusing to give effect to Congress’ more general intent, an intent that is expressed, albeit imperfectly, in the language Congress chose. For these *497reasons, and others stated by Justice Blackmun in his thorough opinion, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.