Califano v. Goldfarb 430 U.S. 199 (1977) Califano v. Webster 430 U.S. 313 (1977)
United States Constitution According to the###”http://lawin.org/Encyclopedia-of-the-American-Constitution/” title=”Encyclopedia of the American Constitution”>Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, about its article titled 484 CALIFANO v. GOLDFARB 430 U.S. 199 (1977) CALIFANO v. WEBSTER 430 U.S. 313 (1977) These decisions illustrated the delicacy of distinguishing between “benign” gender classifications and unconstitutional ones. Goldfarb invalidated, 5_4, a social security act provision giving survivor's benefits to any
###”http://lawi.us/constitutional-law-index/”>(read more about Constitutional law entries here). Some Constitutional Law Popular Entries ###”http://lawin.org/constitutional-law-outline/”>Constitutional Law Outline ###”http://lawi.us/constitutional-law-outline/”>Constitutional Law Outline (United States) ###”http://lawin.org/Constitutional-Lawyer/”>Constitutional Lawyer ###”http://india.lawi.asia/constitutional-law/”>Constitutional Law of India ###”http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/Constitutional-Law/”>Constitutional Law Definition ###”http://lawin.org/Constitutional-Law-Cases/”>Constitutional Law Cases ###”http://lawi.us/Constitutional-Law-Cases/”>Constitutional Law Cases (United States)
Califano v. Goldfarb Details
Concurring Brennan, White, Marshall, Powell
Concurring Specially Stevens Dissenting Rehnquist, Stewart, Blackmun, Burger, C.J. Justices Concurring Justices Concurring Specially Concurring in part and Dissenting in part Justices Dissenting Citation of Califano v. Goldfarb 430 U.S. 199 (1977).
Legislation held Unconstitutional by Califano v. Goldfarb
Acts of Congress may be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in accordance with the ###”http://lawi.us/judicial-review/”>doctrine of Judicial Review. The Supreme Court, in Califano v. Goldfarb , declared that the following Act is unconstitutional in whole or in part: Act of August 28, 1950 (§ 202(f)(1)(E), 64 Stat. 485, 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D)) Provision declaring the Unconstitutionality Social Security Act provision awarding survivor's benefits based on earnings of a deceased wife to widower only if he was receiving at least half of his support from her at the time of her death, whereas widow receives benefits regardless of dependency, held violative of equal protection element of Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because of its impermissible sex classification.
Resources
See Also ###”http://lawi.us/judicial-paramountcy/”>Judicial Paramountcy ###”http://lawi.us/list-of-legislation-held-unconstitutional/”>List of Legislation held Unconstitutional ###”http://lawi.us/list-of-decisions-declaring-legislation-unconstitutional/”>List of Decisions Declaring Legislation Unconstitutional ###”http://lawi.us/legislation-declared-unconstitutional/”>Legislation Declared Unconstitutional ###”http://lawi.us/judicial-review-limitations/”>Judicial Review Limitations ###”http://lawi.us/judicial-review-origins/”>Judicial Review Origins ###”http://lawi.us/judicial-review-impact/”>Judicial Review Impact ###”http://lawi.us/legislation-declared-unconstitutional/”>Legislation Declared Unconstitutional ###”http://lawi.us/declaration-of-unconstitutionality/”>Declaration of Unconstitutionality ###”http://lawi.us/unconstitutional/”>Unconstitutional Further Reading Power of the Supreme Court to Declare Acts of Congress Unconstitutional: An Address Delivered Before the Joint Session of the Legislature of the State of Oklahoma Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent, by James F. Spriggs and Thomas G. Hansford (63 J. Pol. 1091, 2001)