Editing Social Security Act (section)

==Constitutional litigation==
In the 1930s, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] struck down many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the [[Railroad Retirement Board|Railroad Retirement Act]]. The Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the [[National Industrial Recovery Act]], the [[Agricultural Adjustment Act]], and New York State's [[minimum-wage]] law. President Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the [[Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937]]. On February 5, 1937, he sent a special message to Congress proposing legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or older who refused to retire.<ref name="Supremecourthistory.org">[http://www.supremecourthistory.org/01_society/01.html Supremecourthistory.org] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081006175022/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/01_society/01.html |date=October 6, 2008 }}</ref> The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would get to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to lower federal courts), thus instantly tipping the political balance on the Court dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal lasted over six months. Beginning with a set of decisions in March, April, and May 1937 (including the Social Security Act cases), the Court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation.<ref name="Social Security Administration">{{cite web|url=http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html|title=Social Security Administration|publisher=Ssa.gov|access-date=2011-09-11}}</ref>

Chief Justice [[Charles Evans Hughes]] played a leading role in defeating the court-packing by rushing these pieces of New Deal legislation through and ensuring that the court's majority would uphold it.<ref name="Henretta">{{cite web |last1=Henretta |first1=James A. |title=Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America |url=https://historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.1/henretta.html |publisher=[[Law and History Review]]/[[History Cooperative]] |access-date=September 15, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090427031857/https://historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.1/henretta.html |archive-date=April 27, 2009 |date=Spring 2006|url-status=unfit}}</ref> In March 1937, [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justice]] [[Owen Roberts]], who had previously sided with the court's [[Four Horsemen (Supreme Court)|four conservative justices]], shocked the American public by siding with Hughes and the court's [[Three Musketeers (Supreme Court)|three liberal justices]] in striking down the court's previous decision in the 1923 case ''[[Adkins v. Children's Hospital]]'', which held that minimum wage laws were a violation of the Fifth Amendment's [[due process clause]] and were thus unconstitutional, and upheld the constitutionality of Washington state's minimum wage law in ''[[West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish]].'' In 1936, Roberts joined the four conservative justices in using the ''Adkins'' decision to strike down a similar minimum wage law New York state enforced in ''Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo''<ref name="ussc|298|587|1936">{{ussc|298|587|1936}}</ref> and his decision to reverse his previous vote in the ''Morehead'' decision would be known as [[the switch in time that saved nine]]. In spite of widespread speculation that Roberts only agreed to join the court's majority in upholding New Deal legislation, such as the Social Security Act, during the spring of 1937 because of the court packing plan, Hughes wrote in his autobiographical notes that Roosevelt's court reform proposal "had not the slightest effect on our [the court's] decision" in the ''Parrish'' case<ref name="McKenna">{{cite book |last=McKenna |first=Marian C. |title=Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-packing Crisis of 1937. |publisher=Fordham University Press |location=New York, NY |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8232-2154-7}}</ref>{{rp|419}} and that the delayed announcement of the decision created the false impression that the Court had retreated under fire.<ref name="McKenna"/>{{rp|419}} Following the vast support that was demonstrated for the New Deal through Roosevelt's [[1936 United States presidential election|re-election in 1936]],<ref name="McKenna"/>{{rp|422–23}} Hughes persuaded Roberts to no longer base his decisions on political maneuvering and side with him in future cases that involved New Deal legislation<ref name="McKenna"/>{{rp|422–23}}

Records show Roberts had indicated his desire to overturn the ''Adkins'' decision two days after oral arguments concluded for the ''Parrish'' case on December 19, 1936.<ref name="McKenna"/>{{rp|413}} During this time, however, the court was divided 4-4 following the initial conference call because Associate Justice [[Harlan Fiske Stone]], one of the three liberal justices who continuously voted to uphold New Deal legislation, was absent due to an illness;<ref name="McKenna"/>{{rp|414}} with this even division on the Court, the holding of the [[Washington Supreme Court]], finding the minimum wage statute constitutional, would stand. As Hughes desired a clear and strong 5–4 affirmation of the Washington Supreme Court judgment, rather than a 4–4 default affirmation, he convinced the other justices to wait until Stone's return before both deciding and announcing the case.<ref name="McKenna"/>{{rp|414}}

===U.S. Supreme Court cases===
Two [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act.
* ''[[Steward Machine Company v. Davis]]'', 301 U.S., 548<ref name="www.oyez.org.654">{{cite web|title=''Steward Machine Company vs. Davis'', 301 U.S, 548 |url=https://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/368/ |access-date=December 3, 2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051128231948/https://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/368/ |archive-date=November 28, 2005 }}</ref> (1937) held in a 5–4 decision that given the exigencies of the [[Great Depression]], "[It] is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the [[general welfare]]." The arguments opposed to the Social Security Act articulated by justices [[Pierce Butler (justice)|Butler]], [[James Clark McReynolds|McReynolds]], and [[George Sutherland|Sutherland]] in their opinions were that the Social Security Act went beyond the powers that were granted to the federal government in the [[U.S. Constitution]]. They argued that by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only by contributing to a state [[unemployment benefit|unemployment-compensation]] fund, the federal government was essentially forcing each state to establish an unemployment-compensation fund that would meet its criteria and that the federal government had no power to enact such a program.
* ''[[Helvering v. Davis]]'', 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as ''Steward'', upheld the program: "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way." That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.

===Other cases===
*''[[Flemming v. Nestor]]'', 363 U.S. 603 (1960) upholding §1104, allowing Congress to itself amend and revise the schedule of benefits. Further, however, recipients of benefits had no contractual rights to them.
*''[[Goldberg v. Kelly]]'' 397 U.S. 254 (1970) [[William J. Brennan Jr.|William Brennan Jr.]] held there must be an evidentiary hearing before a recipient can be deprived of government benefits under the due process clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]].
*''[[Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld]]'' (1975) held that a male widower should be entitled to his deceased wife's benefit just as a female widow was entitled to a deceased husband's, under the equal protection and due process clauses of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]].