Jimenez v. Richardson

• Citation: 353 F. Supp. 1356
• Decision Date: 30 January 1973
• Docket Number: No. 71 C 1436,71 C 2628.,71 C 1436
• Parties: Magdalena JIMENEZ, by Ramon Jimenez, her father and next friend, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Elliot RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant. Robin BOOKER, by Francine Booker, her mother and next friend, Plaintiff, v. Elliot RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

353 F. Supp. 1356

Magdalena JIMENEZ, by Ramon Jimenez, her father and next friend, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Elliot RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.

Robin BOOKER, by Francine Booker, her mother and next friend, Plaintiff, v. Elliot RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant.

Nos. 71 C 1436, 71 C 2628.

United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

January 30, 1973.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jane Stevens, Woodlawn Neighborhood Legal Services, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Marvin E. Gavin, Regional Atty., Donald E. Phelps, Asst. Regional Atty., Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

Before FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge, and AUSTIN and DECKER, District Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and JUDGMENT ORDER

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated cases challenge the constitutionality of two sections of the Social Security Act inasmuch as they discriminate against a particular class of illegitimate children. A three-judge panel has heard plaintiffs' claims, jurisdiction for which is based upon 42 U.S. C. § 405(g) (1970). For the reasons stated below, this court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismisses both cases.

Social Security benefits may be obtained on behalf of the children of an insured individual entitled to disability or death benefits under the Act. 42 U. S.C. § 402(d) (1970). In determining whether an applicant is the child of an insured, 42 U.S.C. § 416(h) establishes three independent tests. First, an applicant is the child of an insured if he can inherit the insured's personal property under the law of intestate succession of the state of the insured's domicile. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A) (1970). Second, an applicant is the child of an insured if his parents went through a marriage ceremony that resulted in a purported, but nevertheless invalid, marriage. The invalidity must have been caused by a defect in the marriage procedure or by the failure of one of the parents to dissolve a prior marriage. 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(B) (1970). The third statutory definition of child encompasses those of the insured's issue who do not come within the first two provisions. An applicant for benefits is a child under 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(3)(B) if before the commencement of the insured's period of disability (1) he made an written acknowledgment that the applicant is his child, or (2) a court decree established the insured's paternity of the applicant, or (3) a court has ordered the insured to support the applicant because of paternity, or (4) if the Secretary finds sufficient evidence that the insured is the parent of the applicant and contributed to his support when the disability began. It is the treatment of this third class of children that is challenged in the instant case.

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(3)(B) requires that the applicant be a child of the insured when his disability began. Ramon Jimenez has three illegitimate children, Magdalena, Alicia and Ramon, Jr. Because Alicia and Ramon, Jr. were born after their father became disabled, they are not considered his children under § 416(h)(3)(B) and may not claim benefits under the Act, even though Ramon, Sr. has supported and acknowledged them as his own. The situation of Magdalena Jimenez and Robin Booker is different from that of Alicia and Ramon, Jr in that both of these illegitimate children were born to their parents before the disability commenced. However, they were not entitled to receive benefits because their families exceeded the maximum benefit limitations of 42 U.S.C. § 403(a) (1970). Although the validity of § 403(a) was originally a substantial part of these lawsuits, the Supreme Court recently affirmed two three-judge court rulings which held § 403(a) unconstitutional.¹ Since we have no reason to believe that the Social Security Administration will fail to comply with those decisions,² a controversy no longer exists between defendant and plaintiffs Robin Booker and Magdalena Jimenez. Hence, their complaints are dismissed as moot and the subsequent scope of this opinion shall be limited to the constitutionality of § 416(h)(3)(B).

Prior to 1965, children who presently come within the § 416(h)(3)(B) definition of children were entirely excluded from receiving any benefits under the Act, even though the Act thereby discriminated between different classes of illegitimates.³ In 1965, Public Law 89-97 added paragraph (3) to subsection (h) of § 416 and for the first time an entire category of illegitimate children became entitled to receive benefits through a parent's Social Security account, subject to the now challenged restriction that the event which triggered a child's entitlement (e. g., court decree or written acknowledgment) must occur before the onset of the insured's disability. It is clear that, both before and after the amendment, the statute does not simply discriminate against all illegitimate children, for a child could be born out of wedlock and hence illegitimate, yet nevertheless qualify under the first two statutory definitions of "child" contained in § 416(h)(2)(A) and (B). Thus, the statute effectively creates two categories of illegitimates and treats each differently.

Defendant urges us to uphold the constitutionality of this restriction because it is a reasonable means of preventing spurious claims. Plaintiffs assert that this restriction is an unconstitutional denial of due process because it is not rationally related to the objectives of the Social Security Act and because there are less restrictive alternatives available to prevent spurious claims. In considering these arguments, this court may not substitute its judgment of social policy for that of the legislature, but rather must consider whether Congress has the power to discriminate between classes of illegitimates as it has done in the Social Security Act. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970).⁴

The power of Congress to discriminate is limited by the due process clause of the fifth amendment, which includes the principle of equal protection when a federal statute discriminates in an invidious manner or deprives persons of their fundamental constitutional rights. Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78, 81, 92 S.Ct. 4, 30 L.Ed.2d 13 (1971); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 641-642, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969); Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499, 74 S.Ct. 693, 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954). In analyzing an alleged denial of equal protection, the Supreme Court has utilized basically two tests depending on the type of interest involved. See generally Developments in the Law Equal Protection, 82 Harv.L.Rev. 1065 (1969). The traditional test consists of a two-part inquiry that first identifies the purposes or objectives of a legislative scheme and then asks whether the challenged discrimination bears a rational relationship to one of those purposes. Moreover, the purpose need not have been a main objective of the statute or even one that the legislators had in mind when they passed it. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 612, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960). The second test, that of the compelling state interest, is not applicable in this case because the Supreme Court has held that a challenged discrimination involving public welfare benefits must stand if it is "rationally based and free from invidious discrimination." Dandridge v. Williams, supra, 397 U.S. at 487, 90 S.Ct. at 1162 (1970). Accord, Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 92 S.Ct. 1724, 32 L.Ed.2d 285 (1972); Richardson v. Belcher, supra; Flemming v. Nestor, supra. Therefore, inasmuch as § 416(h)(3) affects an interest in welfare benefits, it must be considered valid unless it is shown to be irrational and invidious.

However, in addition to asserting an interest in public welfare benefits, plaintiffs also assert an independent constitutional right to be free from a classification based solely upon their status at birth. They claim that this classification is subject to the compelling state interest test commonly found in racial discrimination cases such as Bolling v. Sharpe, supra. But, an examination of recent Supreme Court decisions on the rights of illegitimates convinces us that no such standard is applicable to a legislative classification based on legitimacy at birth and that this interest is also subject to the traditional rational relationship test.⁵ Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 92 S.Ct. 1400, 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (1972); Labine v. Vincent, 401 U.S. 532, 91 S.Ct. 1017, 28 L.Ed.2d 288 (1971); Glona v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 391 U.S. 73, 88 S.Ct. 1515, 20 L.Ed.2d 441 (1968); Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 20 L.Ed.2d 436 (1968). Furthermore, the fact that § 416(h)(3)(B) does not apply to all illegitimate children but only to a well-defined category of them distinguishes this case from those just cited and from the Court's recent decision in Gomez v. Perez, ___ U.S. ___, 93 S.Ct. 872, 35 L.Ed.2d 56 (1973), suggesting that factors other than illegitimacy might account for the discrimination here.

The Social Security Administration has asserted that the prevention of spurious claims is a factor that rationally supports the distinction made in § 416(h)(3)(B) because the purpose of the Act is to replace the support lost by a child when his father becomes disabled. Watts v. Veneman, 334 F.Supp. 482, 486 (D.D.C.1971). Accord, Hagler v. Finch, 451 F.2d 45 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1071, 92 S.Ct. 1522, 31 L.Ed.2d 805 (1972); Perry v. Richardson, 445 F.2d 677 (6th Cir. 1971). We agree. In the letters filed with this court subsequent to oral argument, the Administration cited examples which make it clear to us that, given the knowledge of the Act's provisions absent § 416(h)(3)(B), an insured would have both the opportunity and the financial...