Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment

Supreme Court of the United States
477 U.S. 41, 91 L. Ed. 2d 35, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 107 (1986)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a federal statute creating a benefits program expressly reserves Congress's right to alter, amend, or repeal its provisions, agreements made pursuant to that statute do not create a vested contractual right that is immune from subsequent congressional amendment.

Facts:

In 1950, Congress enacted § 418 of the Social Security Act, allowing states to voluntarily enroll their employees in the Social Security System through an agreement with the federal government.
The statute, under § 418(g), originally permitted states to terminate these agreements upon giving two years' advance written notice.
On March 9, 1951, California entered into a § 418 Agreement, which contained a termination clause that mirrored the language of the federal statute.
By the late 1970s and early 1980s, an increasing number of state and local government entities began filing notices to withdraw from the Social Security System, threatening its financial stability.
At the time of the legal challenge, California had filed termination notices on behalf of 71 of its political subdivisions, covering approximately 34,000 employees.
In 1983, concerned about the fiscal impact of these withdrawals, Congress passed the Social Security Amendments Act, which amended § 418(g) to prohibit states from terminating their agreements, effective immediately and applicable even to entities that had already filed termination notices.

Procedural Posture:

Several public agencies of California, along with the State of California, filed two separate lawsuits against the United States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction and a declaration that the 1983 amendment to the Social Security Act was unconstitutional.
The District Court, ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, found that the amendment unconstitutionally effected a taking of the State's contractual property right to withdraw from the Social Security system.
The federal government appealed the District Court's decision directly 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 an amendment to the Social Security Act that prevents states from terminating their participation agreements, thereby overriding a termination clause in those agreements, constitute a taking of private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Powell

No, the amendment to the Social Security Act does not constitute a taking of private property without just compensation. The original Social Security Act included a provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1304, expressly reserving Congress's right to 'alter, amend, or repeal any provision' of the Act. This reservation clause put all parties, including California, on notice that the terms of participation were subject to future legislative change. The termination clause in California's agreement was not a separately bargained-for contract term but merely a reflection of the statute at the time, incorporated into an agreement that was explicitly 'in conformity with' the Act. Precedent, particularly the Sinking-Fund Cases, establishes that such a reservation of power allows Congress to amend not only the statute but also the contracts made under it. Therefore, the state's ability to withdraw was not a vested contractual right rising to the level of 'property' for Fifth Amendment purposes, but a conditional feature of a regulatory program that Congress had the authority to modify for the general welfare.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies Congress's broad authority to modify large-scale federal social welfare programs to address changing economic and social conditions. It establishes that a statutory reservation-of-power clause effectively prevents contractual rights from vesting against the government, insulating such programs from Takings Clause challenges when Congress alters their terms. The ruling distinguishes between the government's repudiation of a specific debt and its modification of a regulatory scheme, thereby narrowing the definition of 'property' in the context of statutory entitlement programs. Future challenges to legislative changes in federal benefits programs are less likely to succeed where such a reservation clause exists.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment (1986)

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