Jimenez v. Weinberger
United States Supreme Court
417 U.S. 628, 94 S. Ct. 2496, 41 L. Ed. 2d 363 (1974)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
In August 1963, Ramon Jimenez (plaintiff) and Elizabeth Hernandez, an unmarried couple, had a daughter named Magdalena. Jimenez became disabled and started receiving social security benefits in October 1963. The couple later had two more children, Eugenio in 1965 and Alicia in 1968. All three children lived with Jimenez, who supported them throughout their lives. In August 1968, Jimenez applied for child’s insurance benefits on the children’s behalf. Magdalena was deemed eligible for benefits under the Social Security Act (the act), but Eugenio and Alicia were denied due to state law deeming them illegitimate and ineligible to inherit Jimenez’s property, leading to the presumption that Eugenio and Alicia were not dependent on him. Jimenez sued, arguing that the eligibility standards were based on the irrelevant characteristic of illegitimacy, lacking a rational connection to the statute’s goals. US Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Weinberger (defendant) contended that the case was controlled by prior Supreme Court rulings in which the court determined that a classification, even if imperfect, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause if the classification has some reasonable basis. Weinberger further contended that afterborn illegitimate children who may not inherit under state law were treated differently under the act because they were less likely to be dependent on the wage earner and presented a higher risk of fraudulent claims for benefits. The district court upheld the statutory scheme. Jimenez appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burger, C.J.)
Dissent (Renquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.