Bowen v. Owens
476 U.S. 340, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 159, 90 L. Ed. 2d 316 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under rational-basis review, Congress may address complex social welfare issues incrementally, and a legislative classification that temporarily provides benefits to one group (widowed spouses) but not a similar one (divorced widowed spouses) does not violate equal protection if the distinction is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, such as fiscal prudence or prioritizing those presumed to be most dependent.
Facts:
- Buenta Owens married Russell Judd in 1937.
- Owens and Judd divorced in 1968 after 31 years of marriage.
- In 1978, at the age of 61, Buenta Owens married Kenneth Owens.
- On June 19, 1982, Russell Judd, Owens's former husband from whom she was divorced, passed away.
Procedural Posture:
- Buenta Owens applied for divorced widow's benefits from the Social Security Administration, and her claim was denied because she had remarried.
- After her claim was denied upon administrative reconsideration, Owens and the Secretary of Health and Human Services agreed to waive further administrative review.
- Owens filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
- The District Court first granted summary judgment for the Secretary, finding the law rational.
- While a motion to alter the judgment was pending, the District Court certified a nationwide class of plaintiffs.
- The District Court then reversed its prior decision and held the challenged statute unconstitutional.
- The Secretary of Health and Human Services filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 a provision of the Social Security Act that, between 1979 and 1983, authorized survivor's benefits for widowed spouses who remarried after age 60, but denied such benefits to similarly situated divorced widowed spouses, violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No. The challenged provisions of the Social Security Act do not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause because the legislative distinction was not arbitrary or irrational. Under the highly deferential rational-basis standard of review applied to social welfare legislation, Congress is permitted to address problems 'one step at a time.' Congress could have rationally concluded that widowed spouses, as a group, were more likely to be financially dependent on the deceased wage earner than divorced widowed spouses. This assumption is supported by the Act's history, which imposed stricter eligibility requirements (like a 10-year marriage duration) on divorced spouses. Given the significant fiscal impact of expanding benefits, it was rational for Congress to proceed cautiously by extending the exception to the remarriage rule to widows first, before later extending it to divorced widows in 1983.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The statutory distinction between remarried widowed spouses and remarried divorced widowed spouses violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause. There is no evidence in the legislative history that Congress had any rational basis for this distinction; the majority's justification is a post-hoc rationalization created for litigation. While Congress has historically distinguished between divorced and widowed spouses by requiring a minimum marriage duration for the former, this does not imply that those divorced spouses who do meet the requirement are any less dependent. The distinction was merely the result of a legislative compromise between the House and Senate, not a reasoned policy choice, and therefore lacks the rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose required by the Constitution.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The challenged statutory provisions violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause because there is no rational basis for the distinction. Widowed spouses and surviving divorced spouses are arguably more similarly situated after remarriage than before, as they have both formed new family units and altered their economic relationship to the deceased wage earner. Differentiating between them at the point of remarriage, an event that creates a new economic status for both groups, is irrational.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the principle of judicial deference to Congress in the realm of economic and social welfare legislation. By upholding the law under the 'one step at a time' doctrine, the Court signaled that incremental legislative solutions, even those creating temporary inequities, will almost always survive a rational-basis review. This makes it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in equal protection challenges against benefit-conferring statutes, as courts are willing to hypothesize rationales that Congress may not have explicitly articulated. The case serves as a key precedent for the government's broad discretion in allocating finite public resources.
Unlock the full brief for Bowen v. Owens