Yes, the government can stop the checks. Social Security isn't like a personal bank account that the government can't touch. It's a government program, and Congress has the power to change the rules to keep the system working. The rule to stop payments for people deported for certain reasons makes sense; Congress could have decided it was better to keep tax money in the U.S. Also, the Court decided this law wasn't meant to be a punishment, but was just a rule about who is eligible for benefits.

No, this is unconstitutional. Nestor paid into the system for years, and the government essentially promised him retirement benefits. Taking them away is like the government breaking a contract. It's also an unfair punishment for something he did decades ago that wasn't even illegal at the time. The government is punishing him without a proper trial, which the Constitution forbids.

No, this is a 'bill of attainder,' which is when the government passes a law to punish a specific person or group without a trial. The Constitution bans this. Taking away Nestor's retirement money, which he earned, is a punishment. The government is doing it simply because they don't like that he was once a Communist.

No, this law is clearly meant as a punishment. The government didn't stop benefits for everyone who was deported, only for people deported for reasons lawmakers didn't like, such as being a Communist. By picking and choosing who to cut off based on their past actions, Congress showed it was trying to punish people, not just make a sensible rule for a government program. This kind of retroactive punishment is unconstitutional.

No, stopping Nestor's Social Security benefits is not unconstitutional. I believe Social Security benefits are not a permanent property right. Congress needs flexibility to change Social Security rules to handle new situations. It's not unreasonable for Congress to decide that people deported for certain reasons should not get benefits paid for by public taxes. As long as Congress' decision is not entirely irrational, the Court must respect it. We should not lightly assume a law is unconstitutional just because we question Congress' intentions.

I disagree. Nestor earned his Social Security benefits by paying into the system for nearly 20 years. Congress is unfairly taking away a property right he has earned, violating the Constitution's promise of due process. The Court is wrong to say Social Security is just a handout that can be freely taken away. Stopping Nestor's benefits because of his past membership in the Communist Party is also imposing punishment without a proper trial, which the Constitution forbids.

This law is an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it punishes Nestor without a trial. Denying him the Social Security benefits he earned, based on his past legal political activities, is an unfair penalty targeting him for his beliefs. The Court has ruled before that permanently banning someone from government benefits is punishment. Social Security is not a gift, but something workers pay into and earn. Congress can change Social Security rules going forward, but it can't take away benefits a person already earned as a punishment.

I dissent because this law unconstitutionally punishes Nestor for his past conduct. When Nestor left the Communist Party in 1939, that was not even a reason for deportation. Now, after living here 43 years and paying into Social Security for 19 years, he has been deported and lost his benefits. The Court is wrong to say this isn't punishment. Congress did not stop benefits for all deported people, only those it judged to be immoral. That shows the real purpose is to punish disfavored individuals without the required constitutional protections.

"[T] he Due Process clause can be thought to interpose a bar only if a statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification."

Similarly, in the early Cold War period, the Court held that an alien was not punished by "the mere denial" of his Social Security benefits after the government deported him for being a communist.

It is "constitutionally irrelevant whether this reasoning in fact underlay the legislative decision." Id

J. 2-3, the Supreme Court has held that an individual does not have a property right to Social Security benefits.

—put it this way: "[W] here Congress has indicated an intention to establish a civil penalty, we have inquired further whether the statutory scheme was so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate that intention. In regard to this latter inquiry, we have noted that `only the clearest proof could suffice to establish the unconstitutionality of a statute on such a ground.'"

Thus, the Court has held that a person receiving welfare benefits under statutory and administrative standards defining eligibility for them has an interest in continued receipt of those benefits that is safeguarded by procedural due process.

When judicial inquiry of legislative motivation "seeks to go behind objective manifestations it becomes a dubious affair indeed."

The Court concluded that occupational disbarment did not impose an "affirmative disability or restraint" as disbarment is "certainly nothing approaching the `infamous punishment'of imprisonment. "

Legislative intent is determined by considering the statute's text and its structure, and "considerable deference must be accorded to the intent as the legislature has stated it."

—the Court noted the breadth of latitude to be accorded to a legislative judgment when the interest was that of a "noncontractual benefit under a social welfare program."

No. The termination of benefits under § 202(n) of the Social Security Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power. A person's interest in Social Security benefits is not an accrued property right, but rather a noncontractual statutory benefit that Congress may rationally modify. The statute is not a punitive measure constituting a bill of attainder or ex post facto law. First, Social Security benefits are not analogous to a private annuity; they are part of a broad social insurance program that Congress expressly reserved the right to amend for flexibility. Second, while a beneficiary's interest is protected from arbitrary government action, this law survives rational basis review. Congress could have rationally concluded that paying benefits abroad does not stimulate the domestic economy or that public funds should not support those deported for specified conduct. Finally, the statute is not 'punishment' because its aim is not to penalize past conduct but is incident to the regulation of a social welfare program. The sanction is merely the denial of a noncontractual benefit, not an affirmative restraint, and there is no 'clearest proof' of a punitive legislative intent.

Yes. The statute unconstitutionally deprives Nestor of his property without just compensation and operates as an ex post facto law and bill of attainder. Social Security benefits are an 'earned right,' not a gratuity, which individuals and their employers pay for with the expectation of receiving them. Repudiating this promise is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, akin to the government breaking its faith with soldiers in *Lynch v. United States*. The law's purpose is to punish Nestor for his past Communist Party membership—conduct that was not a ground for deportation when he was a member. This legislative punishment, targeting an easily ascertainable group without a judicial trial, is a bill of attainder.

Yes. The law is a classic bill of attainder, which is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. Cutting off a person's livelihood by denying accrued social benefits, which are an 'earned right' based on contributions, is a form of punishment. The statute's clear purpose, as evidenced by legislative history, was to penalize individuals deported for certain disfavored conduct, such as 'subversive activity.' This action is a modern form of confiscating property because a person embraced a certain ideology, which is precisely what the Bill of Attainder Clause was designed to prevent.

Yes. The statute is an unconstitutional ex post facto law that imposes punishment for past conduct without a judicial trial. The Court's claim that the law has a rational, non-punitive purpose is unconvincing because the law is not a general regulation of benefits. Instead, it selectively targets only those aliens deported on 14 specific, 'blameworthy' grounds while exempting aliens deported on 4 other grounds. This selective application demonstrates that Congress's sole concern was to punish the 'person or class of persons disqualified' for conduct it found displeasing, not to rationally administer the Social Security program. The common-sense conclusion is that Nestor was punished for his past actions.

No, the termination of Social Security benefits under §202(n) does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because the right to Social Security benefits is not an accrued property right. I hold that the Social Security system's flexibility is essential to adapt to changing conditions and Congress has the power to modify the statutory scheme. The fact that a beneficiary resides abroad can be relevant to their eligibility, and it is not irrational for Congress to conclude that those deported on certain grounds should not receive benefits from the public purse. As long as the statute is not utterly lacking in rational justification, it is constitutionally valid. The presumption of constitutionality forbids us to lightly invalidate an act of Congress on the basis of motive alone.

I dissent because I believe the termination of Nestor's benefits deprives him of an accrued property right in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court's holding that Social Security benefits are mere gratuities that can be taken away at will fails to recognize that the Social Security system is a contributory insurance program, not a handout. Nestor and his employers made payments into the system for nearly two decades with the expectation of receiving benefits. To now deny him those benefits is no different than the government confiscating a private insurance policy. The taking of Nestor's benefits because he was once a member of the Communist Party also imposes punishment without a judicial trial, amounting to an ex post facto law and bill of attainder prohibited by the Constitution.

Section 202(n) is a classic bill of attainder which imposes punishment without a trial. The deprivation of Nestor's accrued Social Security benefits based on his past Communist Party membership, which was legal at the time, is a penalty aimed at him specifically for his political associations. This court has held that permanent proscription from any opportunity to serve the Government is punishment, and the denial of Social Security benefits is no different. Social Security benefits are not gratuities but instead are based on contributions and earnings of the individual. Congress could completely abolish the Social Security system prospectively, but it cannot single out disfavored individuals and deny them their earned benefits without violating the constitutional prohibition on bills of attainder.

I dissent because §202(n) imposes punishment in violation of the constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws and bills of attainder. When Nestor's past Communist membership ceased in 1939, it was not a deportable offense. The consequences of his past associations have been severe - deported after 43 years of residence and now denied Social Security benefits after contributing to the system for 19 years. The Court's conclusion that this statute does not impose punishment for past conduct is not supportable. Congress did not terminate benefits for all deportees, only those deported for morally blameworthy conduct. This demonstrates Congress' intent to punish specific individuals for their past acts. The Court's reliance on a supposed rational purpose is a mere fiction not supported by the statute itself. Section 202(n) inflicts punishment on unpopular groups without the protections of a judicial trial.

Flemming v. Nestor

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot