Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld
420 U.S. 636 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A gender-based classification in a federal benefits program that provides benefits to widows with minor children but not to similarly situated widowers violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Such a distinction, based on archaic and overbroad generalizations about the economic roles of men and women, unconstitutionally discriminates against female wage earners by providing them with less protection for their families than male wage earners.
Facts:
- Stephen Wiesenfeld and Paula Polatschek were married on November 15, 1970.
- Paula worked as a teacher before and during the marriage, and maximum social security contributions were deducted from her salary each year she worked.
- Paula's earnings were the couple's primary source of support, substantially exceeding Stephen's earnings.
- On June 5, 1972, Paula died in childbirth, leaving Stephen as the sole caregiver for their infant son, Jason Paul.
- Stephen Wiesenfeld applied for Social Security survivors' benefits for both himself and his son.
- His son was granted benefits, but Wiesenfeld was informed by the Social Security Administration that he was ineligible for benefits for himself because § 402(g) 'mother's benefits' were only available to women.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Wiesenfeld filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
- He sought a declaration that § 402(g) was unconstitutional and an injunction to prevent the denial of benefits based on sex.
- The case was heard by a three-judge District Court panel.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Wiesenfeld, holding the statute unconstitutionally discriminated against female wage earners.
- The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (Weinberger), as the appellant, 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 § 402(g) of the Social Security Act, which provides survivors' benefits to widows with minor children but not to similarly situated widowers, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, the gender-based distinction in § 402(g) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The statute's distinction is based on the 'archaic and overbroad' generalization that male workers' earnings are vital to family support, while female workers' earnings are not. This is indistinguishable from the unconstitutional classification struck down in Frontiero v. Richardson. The government's asserted purpose of compensating women for economic discrimination is not the actual purpose of the statute. The legislative history reveals the true purpose was to enable a surviving parent to stay home and care for minor children. Given this purpose, the gender-based classification is entirely irrational, as it is no less important for a child to be cared for by a sole surviving father than a mother. By providing dissimilar treatment, the statute unconstitutionally deprives female wage earners of the same protection for their families that male wage earners receive from their contributions.
Concurring - Justice Powell
I concur in the judgment and generally in the opinion. The impermissible discrimination should be identified more narrowly as being against the female wage earner. Paula Wiesenfeld participated in the Social Security system on the same basis as a man, yet the statutory scheme provided her family with less protection than that of a male wage earner, despite identical family needs. This discrimination against the female wage earner, whose contributions provide less protection for her family, lacks any legitimate governmental interest to support the gender classification. I attach less significance to the majority's view that the statute's purpose is to enable a parent to stay home, doubting fathers would make that choice as often as mothers.
Concurring - Justice Rehnquist
I concur in the result. It is unnecessary to reach the broader constitutional analysis of Frontiero v. Richardson. The Court's examination of the legislative history convincingly demonstrates that the sole purpose of § 402(g) is to allow children to have the personal care of a surviving parent. Given this purpose, it is irrational to distinguish between mothers and fathers when the question is whether a child should have the opportunity to receive full-time attention from their only remaining parent. The restriction of benefits to mothers does not rationally serve any valid legislative purpose, including the one for which it was designed, and the analysis should end there.
Analysis:
This case was a significant step in the development of intermediate scrutiny for gender-based classifications under the equal protection doctrine. Following Reed v. Reed and Frontiero v. Richardson, the decision solidified the principle that laws based on archaic stereotypes about the economic and domestic roles of men and women are unconstitutional. The Court's willingness to look beyond the government's proffered 'benign' justification to find the statute's actual, non-compensatory purpose set a precedent for a more searching inquiry into gender classifications. This ruling reinforced that women's contributions to the workforce must be afforded the same legal and economic protections as men's, impacting future challenges to gender-discriminatory laws in areas like benefits, employment, and family law.
Unlock the full brief for Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld