Califano v. Goldfarb
1977 U.S. LEXIS 53, 51 L. Ed. 2d 270, 430 U.S. 199 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A gender-based classification in a social welfare program that provides different benefits to the surviving spouses of male and female wage earners violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause when it is based on archaic and overbroad generalizations about the roles of men and women.
Facts:
- Hannah Goldfarb worked as a secretary in the New York City public school system for nearly 25 years.
- Throughout her employment, Hannah Goldfarb paid all required Social Security taxes.
- Hannah Goldfarb was married to Leon Goldfarb.
- In 1968, Hannah Goldfarb died and was survived by her husband, Leon Goldfarb.
- After his wife's death, Leon Goldfarb applied for widower's survivor benefits based on her earnings history.
- Leon Goldfarb's application was denied because he could not prove he had been receiving at least one-half of his support from his wife when she died, a requirement that did not apply to widows.
Procedural Posture:
- Leon Goldfarb's application for widower's benefits was denied by the Social Security Administration.
- Leon Goldfarb then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, challenging the constitutionality of the statutory requirement.
- A three-judge District Court was convened and held that the gender-based dependency requirement was unconstitutional.
- The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (Califano) appealed this 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 a provision of the Social Security Act that requires a widower, but not a widow, to prove he was financially dependent on his deceased spouse to receive survivor's benefits violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. A gender-based distinction in the Social Security Act that requires a widower, but not a widow, to prove dependency violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The statute impermissibly discriminates against female wage earners by providing them less protection for their families than male wage earners receive for the same Social Security contributions. The analysis must focus on the female wage earner who paid taxes but received diminished protection for her spouse, not just on the surviving widower who was denied benefits. Citing Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld and Frontiero v. Richardson, the Court reasoned that justifications based on 'archaic and overbroad' generalizations or 'old notions' about dependency and gender roles, such as the assumption that wives are usually dependent on their husbands, are insufficient. Administrative convenience is not a substantial enough justification to uphold a gender-based classification that results in unequal treatment for similarly situated men and women.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The gender-based distinction in the Social Security Act does not violate the Due Process Clause. The Court should not uncritically apply heightened scrutiny for gender classifications to the field of social insurance legislation, where Congress has wide latitude to create classifications for administrative convenience. The statutory scheme is not invidious; it is a rational measure to ameliorate the characteristically depressed economic condition of aged widows. This differing treatment, which makes it easier for widows to obtain benefits, rests on a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, similar to the law upheld in Kahn v. Shevin. The classification is a justifiable, if overinclusive, means of efficiently distributing benefits to a group with a high likelihood of need, which is permissible under the standard of review applied to social welfare programs.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. The statutory provision violates the Due Process Clause, but the relevant discrimination is against surviving male spouses, not against deceased female wage earners. The tax obligation is uniform, but the distribution of benefits is not. The two main justifications for the distinction—administrative convenience and remedying past economic discrimination against women—are both unacceptable. The cost of paying benefits to nondependent widows is staggeringly high compared to the modest administrative savings, making it an irrational trade-off. Furthermore, the law benefits the least needy widows (those who were not dependent), making it an illogical way to redress past discrimination. The discrimination is an 'accidental byproduct of a traditional way of thinking about females' and lacks the considered legislative judgment required to justify unequal treatment based on sex.
Analysis:
This case solidified the application of intermediate scrutiny to gender-based classifications within federal social welfare programs, an area where the government traditionally receives significant deference. The decision emphasized that the discriminatory impact must be analyzed from the perspective of the female wage earner who receives less protection for her family despite paying the same taxes as her male counterpart. This approach, building on Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, prevents the government from justifying such laws solely on grounds of administrative convenience or archaic stereotypes about gender roles. The case significantly advanced equal protection jurisprudence by refusing to compartmentalize social welfare law as immune from heightened scrutiny for suspect classifications.
