Constitutional Law Keyed to Chemerinsky
Constitutional Law Keyed to Cohen
Constitutional Law Keyed to Stone
The Role Of The Supreme Court In The Constitutional Order
The Powers Of Congress
Judicial Efforts To Protect The Expansion Of The Market Against Assertions Of Local Power
The Distribution Of National Powers
Equality And The Constitution
State v. Post 20 N.J.L. 368, 1845 N.J. Sup. Ct. 14
Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393, 19 Howard 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857)
Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S.537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256, 1896 U.S. 3390
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown I) 347 U.S.483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873, 1954 U.S. 2094
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Brown II) 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L. Ed. 1083, 1955 U.S. 734
New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer 440 U.S. 568, 99 S. Ct. 1355, 59 L. Ed. 2d 587, 1979 U.S. 77
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center 473 U.S. 432, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 87 L. Ed. 2d 313, 1985 U.S. 118
Strauder v. West Virginia 100 U.S. 303, 25 L. Ed. 664, 1879 U.S. 1830, 10 Otto 303
Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 194, 1944 U.S. 1341
Washington v. Davis 426 U.S. 229, 96 S. Ct. 2040, 48 L. Ed. 2d 597, 1976 U.S. 154
McCleskey v. Kemp 481 U.S. 279, 107 S. Ct. 1756, 95 L. Ed. 2d 262, 1987 U.S. 1817
Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, 1967 U.S. 1082
Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1 458 U.S. 457, 102 S. Ct. 3187, 73 L. Ed. 2d 896, 1982 U.S. 151
Miller v. Johnson 129 S. Ct. 673; 172 L. Ed. 2d 642; 2008 U.S. 77 U.S.L.W. 3325
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company 488 U.S. 469, 109 S. Ct. 706,102 L. Ed. 2d 854, 1989 U.S. 579
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena 515 U.S. 200, 115 S. Ct. 2097, 132 L. Ed. 2d 158, 1995 U.S. 4037
Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397, 1976 U.S. 183
United States v. Virginia 518 U.S. 515, 116 S. Ct. 2264, 135 L. Ed. 2d 735, 1996 U.S. 4259
Califano v. Goldfarb 430 U.S. 199, 97 S. Ct. 1021, 51 L. Ed. 2d 270, 1977 U.S. 53
Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855, 1996 U.S. 3245
Sugarman v. Dougall 413 U.S. 634, 93 S. Ct. 2842, 37 L. Ed. 2d 853, 1973 U.S. 147
Implied Fundamental Rights
The Constitution And Religion
The Constitution, Baselines, And The Problem Of Private Power
Please select a chapter
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
Virginia v. Black
United States v. Nixon
United States v. Curtiss-Wright
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
Obergefell v. Hodges
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (On the Tax Power)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (On the Spending Power)
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (On the Commerce Clause)
McDonald v. City of Chicago
Massachusetts v. EPA
Lawrence v. Texas
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Grutter v. Bollinger
Gonzales v. Raich
Gonzales v. Carhart
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission
Arizona v. United States
Constitutional Law Keyed to Sullivan
Constitutional Law Keyed to Brest
Constitutional Law Keyed to Shanor
Constitutional Law Keyed to Varat
Constitutional Law Keyed to Farber
Constitutional Law Keyed to Rotunda
Constitutional Law Keyed to Choper
Constitutional Law > Constitutional Law Keyed to Stone > Equality And The Constitution
Califano v. Goldfarb
Citation. 430 U.S. 199, 97 S. Ct. 1021, 51 L. Ed. 2d 270, 1977 U.S. 53.
Citation430 U.S. 199, 97 S. Ct. 1021, 51 L. Ed. 2d 270, 1977 U.S. 53.
Brief Fact Summary. Under a federal program, widows automatically received benefits upon the death of their husbands. Widowers, however, had to prove they had been receiving support from their wives to receive benefits. A widower, upon being denied benefits, challenged the constitutionality of the distinction.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Gender-based differentiations that lay an unequal hand upon female workers are unconstitutional, unless they are substantially related to important governmental interests.
The mere recitation of a benign, compensatory purpose is not an automatic shield which protects against any inquiry into the actual purposes underlying a statutory scheme.
Facts. Under the Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits (OASDI) program, widows automatically received benefits upon the death of their husbands. Widowers, however, had to prove they had been receiving support from their wives before they could receive benefits. The stated purpose of the statute was to save the expenses associated with determining, which spouses were really dependants. The Appellant, Califano the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (Appellant), argued that the distinction was rational because of the differing welfare needs between widows and widowers. The Appellee, Goldfard (Appellee), a widower whose wife had paid taxes into the program for 25 years, was denied benefits and sued.
Issue. Did the gender-based distinction of OASDI violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution)?
Held. Yes. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Justice William Brennan (J. Brennan) stated that the Appellee's social security taxes were deducted from her salary for 25 years. Yet, because of the statute, she has failed to secure for her spouse the same protection similarly situated males would have secured for their spouses. In addition, she has been deprived of a portion of her earnings for the sake of contributing to a fund out of which benefits would only be paid to others. These are the results from gender-based classifications, especially when justified based on archaic and overbroad generalizations, which the Constitution forbids.
Moreover, Appellant cannot argue the statute is designed to account for the fact that women are less well off financially because of past gender discrimination (remedial legislation). The statute is phrased in terms of "dependency" not "need."
Dissent. Justice William Rehnquist (J. Rehnquist) stated that at most this case presents a gender-based classification that favors aged widows. This is scarcely an invidious discrimination. It in no way perpetuates the economic discrimination, which forms the basis for our heightened scrutiny review of gender-based classifications.
Concurrence. Justice John Paul Stevens (J. Stevens) states that a rule leading to an unequal distribution of benefits solely on the basis of gender, is sufficiently questionable that due process requires there be a legitimate basis for presuming that the law was actually intended to serve the purpose asserted by the Government.
Discussion. This case presents an example of a gender-based classification that was arguably designed to advantage women, but that the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) found actually hurt women. Such a finding is common among cases involving gender-based distinctions.
Study Assets: Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment