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)
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 gender-based discrimination for the purpose of determining social security survivor benefits violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The Social Security Act had required widowers to prove that they were dependent on their spouses for at least half of their support in order to receive survivor benefits while widows would automatically receive benefits upon the death of their husbands. A widower challenged the constitutionality of this gender-based distinction upon being denied survivor benefits after the death of his wife.

Facts and Prior History

Leon Goldfarb, a widower in the state of New York, applied for survivor benefits under the Social Security Act. Leon Goldfarb's late wife Hannah had been a secretary for New York City public schools for nearly twenty-five years and paid all of her social security taxes during that period. Upon her death, Leon Goldfarb applied for survivor benefits, but was denied. The relevant statute, 42 U.S.C § 402, mandated that surviving widowers must meet the burden of proving that they had been receiving over half of their financial support from their wives. The law made no such requirement for widows, who would be provided survivor benefits regardless of their dependency on their husbands.

Goldfarb challenged the constitutionality of the statute in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. He was represented by attorneys from the Women's Rights Litigation Clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. The lower court ruled in Goldfarb's favor, holding that the provision of the Social Security Act that denied benefits to widowers was unconstitutional as discriminating against widowers on the basis of sex. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Representation

Goldfarb was represented by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who at the time was co-founder and general counsel of the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. This case was one of six gender discrimination cases that Ginsburg argued in front of the Supreme Court between 1973 and 1976.

Arguments

She argued that the law afforded female workers less protection for their spouses than that obtained by men, because the statute simply treated the terms "widow" and "dependent" as equivalents. Ginsburg argued that the statute favored "one type of marital unit over another," in that a husband's employment permits secondary benefits to be paid without regard to his wife's dependency, while a wife's employment permits the same benefits only if she provides...

Equal Protection

Need to discuss arguments by Ginsburg and gov't, then add context from Weinberger and discuss concurrence and dissent.

Court Decision

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.

Implications

Add context of gender discrimination litigation; add other Ginsburg cases including Weinberger; add legislative history of Social Security Act

See also

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

Add other relevant cases

Further reading

• Douglas, D. M. (1978). "Social Security: Sex Discrimination and Equal Protection". Baylor Law Review. 30: 199. ISSN 0005-7274. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
• Lens, Vicki (2003). "Reading between the Lines: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Views on Gender Discrimination in Employment, 1971–1982". Social Service Review. 77 (1): 25–50. doi:10.1086/345703. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

A