Karen and Robert Capato were married in August 1999, but the honeymoon ended quickly as Robert was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Before starting chemo which might render him sterile, he had his sperm frozen. He died in March 2002. Karen used his sperm to conceive a child in January 2003, and in September 2003'18 months after Robert Capato's death'she gave birth to twins. The Social Security Act of 1939 allows for survivor benefits for "the child or legally adopted child of an [insured] individual," and so Karen applied for Social Security survivor benefits for the twins. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with her application, holding: "What is before us is a discrete set of circumstances and the narrow question posed by those circumstances: are the undisputed biological children of a deceased wage earner and his widow 'children' within the meaning of the Act? The answer is a resounding 'Yes.'"
The Social Security Administration appealed, and today the Supreme Court of the United States resoundingly said 'No.'" Or, at least, "Look, it's a close call, and the SSA is entitled to the benefit of the doubt." Why? According to Justice Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous Court, a definition which states that a "child" is "the child or legally adopted child of an [insured] individual" is too circular to provide guidance. Instead, she writes, you have to look at other portions of the Act, and the SSA's own regulations interpreting it.
Below the orange gnocchi, I'll explain why, and what lawyers mean when we talk about Chevron.
No comments:
Post a Comment