Astrue v. Capato Ex Rel. B. N. C.

Supreme Court of the United States
182 L. Ed. 2d 887, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 3782, 566 U.S. 541 (2012)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To qualify as a "child" eligible for Social Security survivors benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 416(e), a biological child conceived after the parent's death must be able to inherit from the deceased parent under the relevant state's intestacy laws, as specified in 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A). A biological relationship alone is insufficient to confer "child" status for the purposes of the Act.


Facts:

  • Karen and Robert Capato married in May 1999.
  • Shortly after their marriage, Robert was diagnosed with esophageal cancer.
  • Before undergoing chemotherapy that could cause sterility, Robert deposited his semen in a sperm bank for cryopreservation.
  • Robert died in Florida in March 2002.
  • Robert's will named his living children as beneficiaries but made no provision for children conceived after his death.
  • In January 2003, Karen Capato conceived through in vitro fertilization using her late husband's frozen sperm.
  • Karen gave birth to twins in September 2003, approximately 18 months after Robert's death.

Procedural Posture:

  • Karen Capato applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for survivors insurance benefits on behalf of her twins.
  • The SSA denied her application.
  • An Administrative Law Judge and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey affirmed the SSA's decision.
  • Capato, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
  • The Third Circuit, with the SSA as appellee, reversed the district court, holding that the twins qualified for benefits as biological children without regard to state intestacy law.
  • The Commissioner of Social Security, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Social Security Act require that a child conceived after the death of the wage earner be able to inherit from the decedent under state intestacy law to qualify as a "child" for survivor benefits?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Ginsburg

Yes. To be eligible for survivor benefits, a child conceived after the death of a wage earner must qualify as a "child" under the Social Security Act, which requires applying the relevant state's intestacy law as directed by § 416(h)(2)(A). The court reasoned that § 416(e)'s definition of "child" as "the child...of an individual" is tautological and must be read in conjunction with § 416(h), which provides the method for the "Determination of family status." Section 416(h)(2)(A) explicitly instructs the Commissioner to apply state intestacy law "for purposes of this subchapter," which includes § 416(e). This interpretation aligns with the Act's purpose of providing for dependents of deceased wage earners, using the ability to inherit as a reasonable proxy for dependency. Furthermore, the Social Security Administration's long-standing interpretation, formalized through rulemaking, is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.



Analysis:

This decision resolves a circuit split and solidifies the primacy of state law in determining family status for federal benefits programs in the absence of explicit federal preemption. By rejecting a uniform federal definition based on biology, the Court confirmed that matters of family law, even when affecting federal benefits, remain the province of the states. The ruling affirms the Social Security Administration's interpretation that § 416(h) acts as a gateway for determining "child" status, thereby preventing an open-ended class of posthumously conceived children from qualifying for benefits without regard to state inheritance schemes. This outcome emphasizes the importance of Chevron deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, particularly when those interpretations are long-standing and promulgated through formal rulemaking.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Astrue v. Capato Ex Rel. B. N. C. (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"