Califano v. Goldfarb

Califano v. Goldfarb
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 5, 1976 Decided March 2, 1977
Full case name	Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Leon Goldfarb
Citations	430 U.S. 199 (more) 97 S. Ct. 1021; 51 L. Ed. 2d 270; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 53
Case history
Prior	Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Holding
The gender-based distinction created by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr. William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Plurality	Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Powell
Concurrence	Stevens
Dissent	Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, Blackmun

Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Background

Leon Goldfarb, a widower in the state of New York, applied for survivor's benefits under the Social Security Act. Goldfarb's late wife Hannah paid Social Security taxes for 25 years, yet his application was denied. In order to be eligible for benefits under 42 U.S.C § 402, he must have been receiving half his support from his wife at her time of death. 42 U.S.C Section 402 did not impose this requirement on widows. Goldfarb challenged the statute under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question Before the Court

Do gender-specific requirements for benefits of the Social Security Act violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Decision of the Court

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Court ruling that gender specific requirements for Social Security benefits were unconstitutional. Citing an "indistinguishable" situation in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, Justice Brennan wrote the decision for the court. He noted that in Weinberger, an "indistinguishable" statute was deemed unconstitutional. With this, and several other gender-equality cases, the court rejected the "archaic and overbroad" generalizations that a wife is more likely to be dependent on her husband than a husband on his wife." Justice Stevens wrote in concurrence with the majority, and Justice Rehnquist wrote in dissent.

See also

• Gender equality
• List of gender equality lawsuits
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430
• Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975)

Further reading

• D.M. Douglas, Social Security: Sex Discrimination and Equal Protection, 30 Baylor L. Rev. 199 (1978)..
• Vicki Lens, Reading between the Lines: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Views on Gender Discrimination in Employment, 1971–1982, 77 Social Service Rev. 25 (2003)..

External links

• Text of Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)