heckler
mathews
argued
december
decided
march
prior
spousal
benefits
social
security
act
act
payable
husbands
widowers
demonstrate
dependency
wives
support
whereas
wives
widows
entitled
benefits
without
showing
dependency
husbands
califano
goldfarb
affirmed
district
judgment
holding
dependency
requirement
widowers
violated
equal
protection
component
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
thereafter
repealing
dependency
requirement
widowers
husbands
congress
order
avoid
fiscal
drain
social
security
trust
fund
enacted
pension
offset
provision
generally
requires
reduction
spousal
benefits
amount
federal
state
government
pensions
received
social
security
applicant
however
order
protect
interests
individuals
retired
retire
planned
retirements
reliance
entitlement
law
spousal
benefits
unreduced
government
pension
benefits
congress
exempted
pension
offset
requirement
spouses
eligible
receive
pension
benefits
prior
december
qualified
unreduced
spousal
benefits
act
administered
january
congress
also
included
severability
clause
substance
provides
exception
pension
offset
requirement
held
invalid
requirement
affected
application
exception
broadened
include
persons
included
within
appellee
husband
hereafter
appellee
retiring
postal
service
applied
husband
benefits
act
account
wife
retired
earlier
fully
insured
act
determined
administratively
although
appellee
entitled
spousal
benefits
entirely
offset
postal
service
pension
pursuant
pension
offset
provision
act
appellee
wife
brought
class
action
federal
district
alleging
application
pension
offset
provision
nondependent
men
similarly
situated
nondependent
women
violated
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
severability
clause
also
unconstitutional
district
held
pension
offset
provision
severability
clause
unconstitutional
concluding
latter
valid
deprive
appellee
standing
bring
action
preventing
receiving
spousal
benefits
prevails
allowed
held
appellee
standing
prosecute
action
right
asserts
right
receive
benefits
according
classifications
without
sufficient
justification
differentiate
among
covered
applicants
solely
basis
sex
substantive
right
particular
amount
benefits
appellee
standing
depend
ability
obtain
increased
social
security
payments
right
equal
treatment
guaranteed
constitution
coextensive
substantive
rights
benefits
denied
party
discriminated
rather
discrimination
perpetuating
archaic
stereotypic
notions
stigmatizing
members
disfavored
group
innately
inferior
therefore
less
worthy
participants
political
community
cause
serious
noneconomic
injuries
persons
denied
equal
treatment
solely
membership
disfavored
group
severability
clause
forbid
extension
benefits
excluded
class
withdrawal
benefits
favored
class
injury
caused
unequal
treatment
allegedly
suffered
appellee
may
redressed
pp
pension
offset
exception
applies
otherwise
eligible
men
show
dependency
wives
support
language
history
exception
plainly
demonstrate
congress
intended
resurrect
grace
period
dependency
test
law
afford
protection
anticipated
receiving
spousal
benefits
prior
goldfarb
without
providing
also
qualify
result
goldfarb
decision
interpret
exception
appellee
urges
incorporate
classification
kind
invalidated
goldfarb
instead
exempts
offset
requirement
men
women
without
regard
dependency
defeat
congress
intention
rendering
offset
requirement
applicable
applicants
frustrate
congressional
aim
preventing
fiscal
drain
social
security
trust
fund
pp
classification
pension
offset
exception
constitutional
pp
although
temporarily
reviving
classification
invalidated
goldfarb
offset
exception
directly
substantially
related
important
governmental
objective
protecting
individuals
planned
retirements
reasonable
reliance
law
effect
prior
decision
receive
spousal
benefits
unreduced
amount
government
pensions
also
entitled
objective
provides
exceedingly
persuasive
justification
classification
incorporated
offset
exception
pp
means
employed
statute
substantially
related
achievement
objective
reviving
period
eligibility
criteria
effect
january
offset
exception
narrowly
tailored
protect
persons
made
retirement
plans
prior
changes
law
occurred
date
persons
men
well
women
may
receive
spousal
benefits
unreduced
government
pensions
persons
men
well
women
first
became
eligible
benefits
january
may
exception
distinguishes
social
security
applicants
according
archaic
generalizations
roles
abilities
men
women
rather
according
whether
planned
retirements
expectation
created
law
effect
january
receive
full
spousal
benefits
government
pension
pp
brennan
delivered
opinion
unanimous
mark
levy
argued
cause
appellant
briefs
solicitor
general
lee
assistant
attorney
general
mcgrath
deputy
solicitor
general
geller
john
benn
argued
cause
appellees
brief
robert
bunch
bruce
miller
isabelle
katz
pinzler
burt
neuborne
nancy
duff
campbell
filed
brief
american
civil
liberties
union
et
al
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
edith
fierst
joseph
henderson
james
rosa
filed
brief
american
federation
government
employees
et
al
amici
curiae
justice
brennan
delivered
opinion
califano
goldfarb
held
classification
provisions
social
security
act
violated
right
equal
protection
laws
guaranteed
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
case
district
northern
district
alabama
held
amendments
act
adopted
partly
response
decision
unjustifiably
revive
classification
invalidated
goldfarb
therefore
also
violate
fifth
amendment
app
juris
statement
secretary
health
human
services
appealed
directly
noted
probable
jurisdiction
reverse
social
security
act
act
provides
spousal
benefits
wives
husbands
widows
widowers
retired
disabled
wage
earners
ed
supp
prior
december
benefits
payable
husbands
widowers
demonstrate
dependency
wives
support
wives
widows
hand
entitled
spousal
benefits
without
showing
dependency
husbands
see
former
march
califano
goldfarb
supra
affirmed
judgment
district
held
dependency
requirement
widowers
violated
equal
protection
component
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
subsequently
summarily
affirmed
two
district
decisions
invalidating
dependency
requirement
husbands
benefits
califano
silbowitz
jablon
califano
following
decisions
part
general
reform
social
security
system
congress
repealed
dependency
requirement
widowers
husbands
social
security
amendments
amendments
pub
stat
supp
see
pp
concluded
however
elimination
dependency
test
increasing
number
individuals
entitled
spousal
benefits
create
serious
fiscal
problem
social
security
trust
fund
see
problem
particularly
acute
respect
large
number
retired
federal
state
employees
become
eligible
spousal
benefits
unlike
applicants
must
offset
dual
social
security
benefits
retired
civil
servants
time
amendments
receive
full
amount
spousal
benefits
government
pensions
entitled
congress
estimated
payment
unreduced
spousal
benefits
individuals
cost
system
estimated
million
supra
avoid
fiscal
drain
congress
included
part
amendments
pension
offset
provision
generally
requires
reduction
spousal
benefits
amount
certain
federal
state
government
pensions
received
social
security
applicant
amendments
supp
congress
estimated
percent
savings
achieved
pension
offset
provision
proposed
senate
attributable
reduction
payments
nondependent
husbands
widowers
entitled
spousal
benefits
prior
decision
goldfarb
see
supra
remaining
portion
savings
however
come
reduction
benefits
individuals
mostly
women
also
dependent
men
retired
retire
planned
retirements
reliance
entitlement
law
spousal
benefits
unreduced
government
pension
benefits
see
ibid
conf
conf
order
protect
reliance
interests
group
see
infra
congress
exempted
pension
offset
requirement
ultimately
enacted
spouses
eligible
receive
pension
benefits
prior
december
qualified
unreduced
spousal
benefits
act
effect
administered
january
amendments
note
following
supp
subsection
established
grace
period
individuals
qualified
spousal
benefits
january
congress
also
included
severability
clause
provides
provision
subsection
application
thereof
person
circumstance
held
invalid
remainder
section
shall
affected
thereby
application
subsection
persons
circumstances
shall
also
considered
invalid
amendments
note
following
supp
appellee
robert
mathews
hereafter
mathews
appellee
retired
job
postal
service
november
wife
retired
job
months
earlier
fully
insured
social
security
act
december
mathews
applied
husband
benefits
wife
account
review
application
social
security
administration
ssa
informed
mathews
entitled
spousal
benefits
per
month
appellee
acknowledged
dependent
upon
wife
support
amount
entirely
offset
per
month
postal
service
pension
accordance
amendments
supp
app
juris
statement
hearing
administrative
law
judge
alj
affirmed
ssa
initial
decision
alj
decision
turn
affirmed
appeals
council
department
health
human
services
thereby
became
final
decision
secretary
mathews
wife
brought
class
action
secretary
district
northern
district
alabama
act
complaint
alleged
application
pension
offset
provision
amendments
mathews
nondependent
men
similarly
situated
nondependent
women
violated
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
sought
declaratory
judgment
effect
appellee
also
contended
severability
clause
amendments
unconstitutional
district
certified
nationwide
class
composed
applicants
husband
insurance
benefits
whose
applications
denied
beginning
days
filing
complaint
solely
statutory
requirement
husbands
must
received
support
wives
order
entitled
benefits
app
juris
statement
shortly
thereafter
district
filed
opinion
order
holding
pension
offset
exception
severability
clause
unconstitutional
noted
essence
exception
pension
offset
provides
grace
period
women
retire
within
five
years
enactment
men
retire
within
five
years
enactment
economically
dependent
upon
wives
light
classification
noted
offset
exception
upheld
serve
important
governmental
objectives
substantially
related
achievement
objectives
quoting
craig
boren
decided
exception
justified
protecting
reliance
interests
individuals
planned
retirements
prior
amendments
expectation
undiminished
benefits
requiring
men
prove
dependency
notwithstanding
decision
goldfarb
offset
exception
presumes
women
relied
upon
practices
social
security
administration
yet
men
relied
upon
decision
app
juris
statement
accordingly
held
portion
exception
pension
offset
provision
requires
male
applicant
prove
received
economic
support
wife
violates
equal
protection
guarantees
due
process
clause
fifth
amendment
omitted
invalidated
exception
offset
provision
district
considered
severability
clause
noted
event
appellee
obtained
judgment
offset
exception
unconstitutionally
discriminates
clause
valid
require
nullification
exception
persons
rather
extension
exception
persons
like
appellee
consequently
government
retirees
covered
social
security
without
regard
gender
dependency
spousal
benefits
offset
amount
government
pensions
characterized
effect
severability
clause
effort
congress
mandate
outcome
challenge
validity
pension
offset
exception
making
challenge
fruitless
even
plaintiff
achieved
success
classification
stricken
derive
personal
benefit
decision
pension
offset
applied
applicants
without
exception
view
congress
meant
defeat
reliance
interests
government
retirees
way
concluded
severability
clause
expression
true
congressional
intent
instead
adroit
attempt
discourage
bringing
action
destroying
standing
ibid
accordingly
held
severability
provision
unconstitutional
ordered
secretary
pay
mathews
rest
plaintiff
class
full
spousal
benefits
without
regard
dependency
without
offsetting
amount
government
pensions
ii
may
affect
jurisdiction
see
linda
richard
consider
first
district
conclusion
severability
provision
amendments
valid
deprive
appellee
standing
bring
action
preventing
receiving
spousal
benefits
prevails
allowed
appellee
agrees
district
analysis
reason
contends
severability
clause
amounts
unconstitutional
attempt
congress
thwart
jurisdiction
remedial
power
federal
courts
agree
secretary
however
right
asserted
appellee
right
receive
benefits
distributed
according
classifications
without
sufficient
justification
differentiate
among
covered
applicants
solely
basis
sex
weinberger
wiesenfeld
substantive
right
particular
amount
benefits
appellee
standing
depend
ability
obtain
increased
social
security
payments
order
establish
standing
purposes
constitutional
case
controversy
requirement
plaintiff
must
show
personally
suffered
actual
threatened
injury
result
putatively
illegal
conduct
defendant
gladstone
realtors
village
bellwood
injury
likely
redressed
favorable
decision
simon
eastern
kentucky
welfare
rights
organization
case
appellee
claims
type
personal
injury
long
recognized
judicially
cognizable
alleges
pension
offset
exception
subjects
unequal
treatment
provision
social
security
benefits
solely
gender
specifically
nondependent
man
receives
fewer
benefits
similarly
situated
woman
app
although
severability
clause
prevent
redressing
inequality
increasing
benefits
payable
appellee
never
suggested
injuries
caused
constitutionally
underinclusive
scheme
remedied
extending
program
benefits
excluded
class
contrary
noted
sustaining
claim
faces
two
remedial
alternatives
may
either
declare
statute
nullity
order
benefits
extend
class
legislature
intended
benefit
may
extend
coverage
statute
include
aggrieved
exclusion
welsh
harlan
concurring
result
see
califano
westcott
reason
frequently
entertained
attacks
discriminatory
statutes
practices
even
government
deprive
successful
plaintiff
monetary
relief
withdrawing
statute
benefits
favored
excluded
class
decisions
demonstrate
like
right
procedural
due
process
see
carey
piphus
right
equal
treatment
guaranteed
constitution
coextensive
substantive
rights
benefits
denied
party
discriminated
rather
repeatedly
emphasized
discrimination
perpetuating
archaic
stereotypic
notions
stigmatizing
members
disfavored
group
innately
inferior
therefore
less
worthy
participants
political
community
mississippi
university
women
hogan
cause
serious
noneconomic
injuries
persons
personally
denied
equal
treatment
solely
membership
disfavored
group
accordingly
justice
brandeis
explained
right
invoked
equal
treatment
appropriate
remedy
mandate
equal
treatment
result
accomplished
withdrawal
benefits
favored
class
well
extension
benefits
excluded
class
moines
national
bank
bennett
severability
clause
forbid
latter
former
kind
relief
case
injury
caused
unequal
treatment
allegedly
suffered
appellee
may
redressed
favorable
decision
simon
eastern
kentucky
welfare
rights
organization
supra
therefore
standing
prosecute
action
iii
although
appellee
prevailed
district
constitutional
claim
urges
alternative
ground
affirmance
construe
pension
offset
exception
incorporate
classification
kind
invalidated
califano
goldfarb
instead
exempts
offset
requirement
men
women
without
regard
dependency
relying
maxim
statutes
construed
avoid
constitutional
questions
batchelder
contends
congress
reviving
qualifying
criteria
effect
decision
goldfarb
must
presumed
done
without
reenacting
dependency
test
held
unconstitutional
cannon
favoring
constructions
statutes
avoid
constitutional
questions
however
license
usurp
policymaking
legislative
functions
duly
elected
representatives
yu
cong
eng
trinidad
see
nlrb
catholic
bishop
chicago
brennan
dissenting
sullivan
lthough
often
strain
construe
legislation
save
constitutional
attack
must
carry
point
perverting
purpose
statute
judicially
rewriting
aptheker
secretary
state
quoting
scales
case
language
history
offset
exception
plainly
demonstrate
congress
meant
resurrect
grace
period
dependency
test
law
noted
supra
congress
adopted
pension
offset
requirement
prevent
serious
fiscal
drain
concluded
result
payment
unreduced
benefits
new
class
recipients
made
eligible
decision
goldfarb
nevertheless
effort
protect
reliance
interests
individuals
planned
retirement
march
goldfarb
decision
resulting
amendments
act
see
conf
conf
congress
exempted
offset
requirement
individuals
eligible
spousal
benefits
act
effect
administered
january
dispute
january
men
eligible
benefits
upon
showing
dependency
whereas
women
subject
requirement
see
former
califano
goldfarb
supra
nn
congress
indicated
intent
revive
eligibility
criteria
including
unusual
severability
clause
event
classification
held
invalid
sacrifice
exception
protection
reliance
interests
goal
served
offset
provision
preventing
undue
financial
burden
system
see
supra
conf
supra
conf
supra
consistent
plain
import
provisions
senator
long
chairman
senate
finance
committee
principal
manager
bill
senate
explained
exception
clause
meant
afford
protection
anticipated
receiving
spouses
benefits
prior
march
without
providing
also
qualify
result
goldfarb
decision
cong
rec
emphasis
added
see
also
remarks
ullman
appellee
proposed
interpretation
exception
provision
defeat
clearly
expressed
intention
rendering
offset
requirement
applicable
applicants
frustrate
congressional
aim
preventing
major
fiscal
drain
social
security
trust
fund
accordingly
reject
appellee
construction
act
conclude
exception
offset
provision
applies
otherwise
eligible
men
show
dependency
wives
support
turn
therefore
consider
constitutionality
classification
iv
recently
reviewed
firmly
established
principles
evaluate
claim
gender
discrimination
like
made
appellee
decisions
establish
party
seeking
uphold
statute
classifies
individuals
basis
gender
must
carry
burden
showing
exceedingly
persuasive
justification
classification
burden
met
showing
least
classification
serves
important
governmental
objectives
discriminatory
means
employed
substantially
related
achievement
objectives
although
test
determining
validity
classification
straightforward
must
applied
free
fixed
notions
concerning
roles
abilities
males
females
care
must
taken
ascertaining
whether
statutory
objective
reflects
archaic
stereotypic
notions
thus
statutory
objective
exclude
protect
members
one
gender
presumed
suffer
inherent
handicap
innately
inferior
objective
illegitimate
state
objective
legitimate
important
next
determine
whether
requisite
direct
substantial
relationship
objective
means
present
mississippi
university
women
hogan
citations
footnotes
omitted
although
offset
exception
temporarily
revives
eligibility
requirements
invalidated
goldfarb
congress
purpose
adopting
exception
bears
relationship
concerns
animated
original
enactment
criteria
concluded
goldfarb
original
standards
premised
assumption
females
normally
dependent
earnings
spouses
males
constituted
accidental
byproduct
traditional
way
thinking
females
stevens
concurring
judgment
reflected
old
notions
archaic
overbroad
generalizations
roles
relative
abilities
men
women
plurality
opinion
accordingly
statute
objective
illegitimate
mississippi
university
women
hogan
supra
provision
issue
contrast
reflects
illegitimate
government
purposes
detailed
congress
adopted
offset
exception
order
protect
expectations
persons
men
women
planned
retirements
based
law
receive
spousal
benefits
unreduced
amount
government
pensions
also
entitled
congress
accomplished
aim
incorporating
eligibility
criteria
existed
january
choice
approach
rather
explicit
adoption
new
standards
confirms
purpose
protect
reliance
prior
law
reassert
sexist
assumptions
rejected
goldfarb
purpose
rendered
illegitimate
fact
achieved
temporary
revival
invalidated
classification
recognized
number
contexts
legitimacy
protecting
reasonable
reliance
prior
law
even
requires
allowing
unconstitutional
statute
remain
effect
limited
period
time
see
northern
pipeline
construction
marathon
pipe
line
plurality
opinion
buckley
valeo
per
curiam
chevron
oil
huson
see
also
los
angeles
dept
water
power
manhart
although
unconstitutional
scheme
retained
unduly
prolonged
period
name
protecting
reliance
interests
even
brief
period
expectations
sought
protected
unreasonable
illegitimate
indication
offset
exception
suffers
either
flaws
duration
exception
closely
related
goal
protecting
individuals
planned
retirements
reliance
prior
law
see
infra
appellee
suggest
expectations
individuals
hardly
anticipated
adoption
offset
requirement
unreasonable
illegitimate
protection
reasonable
reliance
interests
legitimate
governmental
objective
provides
exceedingly
persuasive
justification
statute
issue
see
kirchberg
feenstra
personnel
administrator
mass
feeney
appellee
contest
secretary
statement
significant
salutary
goal
secure
retirement
plans
nation
workers
good
faith
long
reasonably
relied
provisions
social
security
act
brief
appellant
instead
appellee
contends
people
justifiably
relied
expectation
unreduced
benefits
actually
retired
effective
date
offset
provision
individuals
required
offset
benefits
brief
appellees
congress
determined
however
many
individuals
adjusted
spending
savings
habits
prior
retirements
expectation
receiving
full
spousal
benefits
well
government
pension
reason
doubt
conclusion
one
commentator
explained
many
couples
undoubtedly
made
retirement
plans
adjusted
level
private
saving
investment
anticipation
retirement
benefits
social
security
include
special
benefit
spouse
abrupt
denial
benefits
cases
even
spouse
received
shown
truly
dependent
clearly
inequitable
since
couple
savings
retirement
plans
different
spouse
benefit
anticipated
thus
decided
wives
prove
dependency
order
receive
spouse
benefits
strong
argument
made
making
change
gradually
avoid
inequities
couples
approaching
retirement
anticipated
benefits
available
made
retirement
plans
accordingly
flowers
women
social
security
institutional
dilemma
identified
legitimate
important
governmental
purpose
offset
exception
little
trouble
concluding
means
employed
statute
substantially
related
achievement
objectiv
wengler
druggists
mutual
insurance
reviving
period
eligibility
criteria
effect
january
exception
narrowly
tailored
protect
individuals
made
retirement
plans
prior
changes
law
occurred
date
individuals
eligible
spousal
benefits
law
changed
retire
within
five
years
statute
enactment
may
reasonably
assumed
begun
planning
retirement
prior
adoption
offset
provision
see
supra
persons
men
well
women
may
receive
spousal
benefits
unreduced
government
pensions
persons
men
well
women
first
became
eligible
benefits
january
may
moreover
offset
exception
plainly
adopted
reasoned
analysis
rather
mechanical
application
traditional
often
inaccurate
assumptions
proper
roles
men
women
mississippi
university
women
hogan
omitted
legislative
history
set
demonstrates
congress
considered
carefully
length
financial
problems
led
offset
provision
reliance
interests
might
frustrated
requirement
solution
finally
adopted
rejection
expensive
impractical
alternatives
distinguishes
social
security
applicants
according
archaic
generalizations
roles
abilities
men
women
rather
according
whether
planned
retirements
expectation
created
law
effect
january
receive
full
spousal
benefits
government
pension
exception
pension
offset
requirement
set
amendments
social
security
act
temporarily
reviving
classification
invalidated
califano
goldfarb
directly
substantially
related
important
governmental
interest
protecting
individuals
planned
retirements
reasonable
reliance
law
effect
prior
decision
accordingly
judgment
district
reversed
footnotes
time
congress
directed
department
health
education
welfare
include
entire
question
distinctions
study
proposals
eliminate
dependency
sex
discrimination
conf
thereafter
distinctions
eliminated
act
social
security
amendments
pub
stat
see
conf
section
amendments
pub
stat
note
following
supp
provides
full
amendments
made
preceding
provisions
section
section
shall
apply
respect
monthly
insurance
benefit
payable
subsection
case
may
section
social
security
act
individual
payable
month
within
period
beginning
month
act
enacted
eligible
month
monthly
periodic
benefit
within
meaning
provisions
based
upon
individual
earnings
service
federal
government
state
political
subdivision
thereof
defined
section
social
security
act
time
application
initial
entitlement
monthly
insurance
benefit
subsection
meets
requirements
subsection
effect
administered
january
purposes
paragraph
individual
eligible
monthly
periodic
benefit
month
benefit
payable
individual
month
individual
employed
month
made
proper
application
benefit
provision
subsection
application
thereof
person
circumstance
held
invalid
remainder
section
shall
affected
thereby
application
subsection
persons
circumstances
shall
also
considered
invalid
january
congress
created
exception
pension
offset
provision
person
eligible
pension
prior
july
satisfies
dependency
test
pub
stat
april
congress
revised
pension
offset
provision
applicable
persons
without
exception
become
eligible
retire
july
requires
offsetting
public
pension
pub
stat
exception
offset
provision
issue
case
still
applies
nondependent
women
eligible
pensions
prior
december
nondependent
men
named
plaintiff
action
accordingly
recent
amendments
act
moot
case
wengler
druggists
mutual
insurance
califano
goldfarb
plurality
opinion
see
baker
carr
finding
standing
case
injury
appellants
assert
classification
disfavors
voters
counties
reside
placing
position
constitutionally
unjustifiable
inequality
voters
irrationally
favored
counties
see
also
linda
richard
white
dissenting
although
choice
extension
nullification
within
constitutional
competence
federal
district
califano
westcott
ordinarily
extension
rather
nullification
proper
course
course
use
remedial
powers
circumvent
intent
legislature
opinion
powell
therefore
measure
intensity
commitment
residual
policy
consider
degree
potential
disruption
statutory
scheme
occur
extension
opposed
abrogation
welsh
harlan
concurring
result
see
also
califano
westcott
supra
case
congress
severability
clause
clearly
expressed
preference
nullification
rather
extension
pension
offset
exception
event
found
invalid
conclude
severability
clause
deprive
appellee
standing
seek
judicial
redress
alleged
discrimination
offset
exception
need
consider
claim
legislative
attempt
thwart
ability
remedy
constitutional
violation
violate
constitution
see
brief
appellees
wengler
druggists
mutual
insurance
supra
orr
orr
califano
webster
kahn
shevin
stanton
stanton
see
bob
jones
university
havens
realty
coleman
gladstone
realtors
village
bellwood
norwood
harrison
frontiero
richardson
plurality
opinion
trafficante
metropolitan
life
ins
white
concurring
brown
board
education
see
also
sierra
club
morton
consistent
justice
brandeis
explanation
appropriate
relief
denial
equal
treatment
often
recognized
victims
discriminatory
government
program
may
remedied
end
preferential
treatment
others
gilmore
city
montgomery
norwood
harrison
supra
griffin
school
board
prince
edward
county
see
also
califano
westcott
supra
opinion
powell
finding
federal
aid
program
violative
plaintiffs
right
equal
protection
arguing
appropriate
remedy
statute
enjoin
payment
benefits
applicants
including
plaintiffs
relationship
right
asserted
appellee
injury
allegedly
caused
denial
right
distinguishes
case
simon
eastern
kentucky
welfare
rights
organization
case
concluded
indigents
contended
denied
medical
treatment
hospitals
lacked
standing
challenge
government
allegedly
unlawful
administration
tax
code
purely
speculative
whether
injury
caused
government
actions
instead
attributable
decisions
made
hospitals
without
regard
tax
implications
contrast
doubt
direct
causal
relationship
government
alleged
deprivation
appellee
right
equal
protection
personal
injury
appellee
suffered
denial
social
security
benefits
solely
basis
gender
similarly
appellee
personally
denied
benefits
similarly
situated
women
receive
generalized
claim
right
possessed
every
citizen
require
government
administered
according
law
baker
carr
quoting
fairchild
hughes
conclusion
contrary
appellee
suggestion
altered
fact
january
ssa
withholding
disputed
benefit
claims
pending
disposition
goldfarb
social
security
claims
manual
effect
time
notes
current
law
requires
claimants
widower
husband
benefits
meet
support
requirement
requirement
challenged
law
remains
unchanged
payment
made
final
decision
rendered
constitutionality
support
requirement
social
security
administration
claims
manual
transmittal
july
thus
manual
indicates
provided
extant
provisions
act
ssa
january
pay
benefits
male
claimants
failed
demonstrate
dependency
wives
individuals
identified
appellee
subject
offset
requirement
interpretation
act
first
became
eligible
spousal
benefits
enactment
statute
december
see
brief
appellees
reply
brief
appellant
example
amendments
shortened
number
years
divorced
wife
must
married
eligible
spousal
benefits
effective
december
pub
stat
supp
number
judicial
decisions
prior
subsequent
amendments
extended
eligibility
benefits
new
categories
individuals
see
cooper
harris
ed
young
husbands
mertz
harris
supp
sd
tex
remarried
widowers
yates
califano
supp
wd
surviving
divorced
fathers
oliver
califano
transfer
binder
cch
unempl
ins
nd
cal
divorced
husbands
groups
however
mentioned
legislative
history
offset
exception
provisions
limiting
offset
newly
eligible
beneficiaries
frustrate
congress
express
desire
prevent
financial
burden
system
extending
unreduced
benefits
nondependent
men
first
made
eligible
goldfarb
decision
see
pp
see
also
wengler
druggists
mutual
insurance
weinberger
wiesenfeld
schlesinger
ballard
frontiero
richardson
see
conf
managers
concerned
may
large
numbers
women
especially
widows
late
fifties
already
drawing
pensions
eligible
draw
within
years
date
enactment
bill
based
work
whose
retirement
income
planned
assumption
availability
full
wife
widow
benefits
social
security
conf
staff
senate
committee
finance
summary
social
security
amendments
passed
congress
comm
print
assure
persons
counting
benefits
many
years
near
retirement
age
adversely
affected
includes
transitional
exception
certain
individuals
social
security
benefits
spouses
reduced
amount
public
pension
exception
applies
qualify
spouses
benefits
social
security
law
effect
administered
january
indeed
social
security
act
recognizes
critical
importance
protecting
individual
expectation
benefits
even
circumstances
payment
contrary
current
law
act
forbids
recovery
overpayments
recipient
fault
recapture
equity
good
conscience
latter
group
includes
persons
first
became
entitled
spousal
benefits
amendments
well
whose
eligibility
first
established
judicial
decisions
issued
present
see
supra
offset
provision
enacted
end
members
group
law
effect
given
time
might
expected
receive
spousal
benefits
unreduced
government
pensions
became
eligible
result
goldfarb
decisions
announced
year
act
protects
reliance
interests
people
however
providing
offset
applies
applicants
file
claims
spousal
benefits
december
month
enactment
amendments
amendments
pub
stat
note
following
supp
reliance
appellee
goldfarb
decision
frustrated
operation
exception
provision
rather
unfortunate
timing
retirement
informed
result
march
goldfarb
decision
receive
spousal
benefits
unreduced
government
pension
brief
appellees
mathews
retired
october
filed
application
benefits
december
app
applied
benefits
december
exempt
offset
provision
noted
took
effect
day
alternatively
retired
december
day
amendments
enacted
known
expect
spousal
benefits
unreduced
government
pension
might
therefore
altered
plans
although
bind
thus
imposed
mathews
enactment
effective
dates
amendments
regrettable
statute
rendered
fatally
underinclusive
protects
expectations
substantially
greater
duration
see
staff
house
committee
ways
means
wmcp
summary
principal
provisions
social
security
financing
amendments
passed
house
comm
print
house
version
proposing
administration
study
inter
alia
various
proposals
mitigate
cost
impact
recent
goldfarb
decision
system
describing
consideration
rejection
grounds
potential
abuse
inequity
invasion
privacy
administrative
difficulty
requirement
applicant
spousal
benefits
prove
dependency
spouse