Lexplug logoLexplug

Gertrude Thomas v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
922 F.2d 132 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A legislative classification in a social benefits program that grants benefits to individuals in an invalid ceremonial marriage but not to those in an invalid common-law marriage does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause if the distinction is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.


Facts:

  • In 1918, Joseph Thomas married Janie Mills.
  • Joseph Thomas and Janie Mills separated in 1933 but never legally divorced.
  • In 1938, Gertrude Thomas began living with Joseph Thomas in Georgia, a state that recognizes common-law marriages.
  • Gertrude Thomas believed she and Joseph went through a ceremonial marriage, but could produce no official record of a license or certificate.
  • Gertrude Thomas believed Joseph's prior marriage to Janie had ended in divorce.
  • Gertrude and Joseph Thomas lived together for 47 years and had ten children.
  • Joseph Thomas died in 1985.

Procedural Posture:

  • Gertrude Thomas's wife's benefits were converted to widow's benefits upon Joseph Thomas's death in 1985.
  • Janie Thomas, Joseph's first wife, applied for widow's benefits, claiming her marriage was never dissolved.
  • The Social Security Administration (SSA) determined Janie was the lawful widow and terminated Gertrude's benefits.
  • Gertrude's request for reconsideration was denied by the SSA, which found no evidence of a ceremonial marriage.
  • An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing and affirmed the denial of benefits, finding Gertrude was not a 'deemed widow' under the statute.
  • The SSA Appeals Council denied Gertrude's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Secretary.
  • Gertrude Thomas (plaintiff) filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for judicial review.
  • The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the statutory distinction had a rational basis and was constitutional.
  • Gertrude Thomas (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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 Section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act, which grants benefits to a 'deemed widow' who in good faith went through an invalid ceremonial marriage but not to one who in good faith believed she was in a common-law marriage, violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?


Opinions:

Majority - Kearse, J.

No. Section 216(h)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act does not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause because the distinction between invalid ceremonial and common-law marriages has a rational basis. Applying rational basis review, the court determined that Congress is not required to take an 'all-or-nothing approach' when expanding benefits. The government has a legitimate interest in preventing fraudulent claims and promoting administrative efficiency. Congress could have rationally concluded that requiring a marriage ceremony provides objective, documentary proof that is harder to falsify than a common-law relationship, thus reducing fraud. Furthermore, this requirement lessens the administrative burden on the Social Security Administration by providing an objective criterion that avoids subjective inquiries into the parties' intent, which is central to establishing a common-law marriage.


Concurring - Van Graafeiland, J.

This opinion concurs in the judgment but expresses great reluctance. The author finds the outcome 'unconscionable,' as it brands a woman who lived with a man for 47 years and bore his ten children an 'adulteress.' However, the author feels bound to apply the law as written by Congress, not as the court wishes it were written, and therefore must affirm the lower court's decision.



Analysis:

This case is a classic application of rational basis review to a social welfare classification under the Equal Protection Clause. It demonstrates the significant deference courts afford to legislative judgments in this area, upholding distinctions so long as any conceivable rational justification exists. The decision reinforces the constitutionality of using 'prophylactic rules'—bright-line rules that may be imprecise but serve legitimate governmental interests like administrative convenience and fraud prevention. The ruling solidifies the principle that Congress may legislate incrementally, extending benefits to some groups without being constitutionally required to extend them to all similarly situated groups at once.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gertrude Thomas v. Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary of Health and Human Services (1990)

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