Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Bowen v. Owens

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionSocial SecurityFifth Amendment Due Processequal protection componentSocial Security Actsurvivor's benefitsdivorced widowed spouse

Facts

Between 1979 and 1983, the Social Security Act allowed a widowed spouse who remarried after age 60 to continue receiving survivor's benefits, but denied those benefits to a similarly situated divorced widowed spouse. Buenta Owens had married Russell Judd in 1937, divorced him in 1968, remarried in 1978 at age 61, and after Judd died in 1982 applied for survivor's benefits on his earnings record. Her claim was denied because she had remarried, and the parties stipulated that the only disputed issue was the constitutionality of the statutory denial. During the litigation, Congress amended the Act in 1983 to permit divorced widowed spouses who remarry after age 60 to receive survivor's benefits in the same manner as widows and widowers, but the certified class sought relief for denials between December 1978 and January 1984.

Issue

Whether the Social Security Act provisions in effect between 1979 and 1983, which permitted widows and widowers who remarried after age 60 to receive survivor's benefits but denied those benefits to divorced widowed spouses who remarried after age 60, violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Rule

In the context of Social Security and other social welfare programs, a statutory classification survives Fifth Amendment equal protection review if it is not patently arbitrary and has a rational justification. Congress may use simple criteria such as marital status to determine probable dependency, and in addressing complex social welfare problems it may proceed one step at a time and extend benefits incrementally rather than all at once.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress creates a federal survivor stipend funded from payroll taxes. The statute lets surviving spouses who remarry after age 62 keep full benefits, but surviving former spouses who remarry after age 62 must wait three years before qualifying. A claimant in Phoenix argues the distinction violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment because both groups are otherwise eligible survivors.

How should a court most likely evaluate the constitutional challenge?

Explanation. In the social welfare context, the majority applied highly deferential rational basis review: the statute is invalid only if it reflects a patently arbitrary classification utterly lacking in rational justification. Congress may use marital status as a proxy for probable dependency and need not treat widowed spouses and divorced widowed spouses identically. The temporary difference can be sustained if rationally related to dependency assumptions or fiscal line-drawing.