Califano v. Goldfarb

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Keith A. Jones (Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellant)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (argued the cause for the appellee)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
75-699
Appellant: 
Leon Goldfarb
Appellee: 
Joseph Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
Decided By: 
Burger Court (1975-1981)
Opinion: 
430 U.S. 199 (1977)
Categories: 
fourteenth amendment, equal protection, social security

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Califano v. Goldfarb , 430 U.S. 199 (1977)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_699)
Facts of the Case: 

Leon Goldfarb was a widower who applied for survivor's benefits under the Social Security Act. Even though his wife Hannah had paid Social Security taxes for 25 years, his application was denied. To be eligible for benefits under 42 U.S.C. Section 402, he must have been receiving half his support from his wife at her time of death. Section 402 did not impose this requirement on widows whose husbands had recently passed away. Goldfarb challenged this statute under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The District Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. The Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question: 

Do the gender-based requirements for survivor's benefits in Section 402 violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court affirmed the District Court in holding the statute unconstitutional. Writing for a four-justice plurality, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. described this situation as "indistinguishable" from the one in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, where a similar statute was invalidated. In this case, a female worker's family was less protected than the family of a male worker. The court rejected the "archaic and overbroad" generalizations that a wife is more likely to be dependent on her husband than a husband on his wife. These "old notions" of gender roles were not sufficient to justify the different treatment of widows and widowers, and which was therefore in violation of the Due Process Clause.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Goldfarb, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Social Security, as amended, including Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act, but excluding Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the minority, joined Rehnquist's dissent
Burger
Wrote the judgment of the Court
Brennan
Voted with the minority, joined Rehnquist's dissent
Stewart
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the minority, joined Rehnquist's dissent
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Powell
Wrote a dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens

Judgment of the Court by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.