Matthews v. De Castro

429 U.S. 181 (1976)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
M
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Matthews v. De Castro

United States Supreme Court
429 U.S. 181 (1976)

  • Written by Nicole Gray , JD

Facts

Helen De Castro (plaintiff) applied for wife’s insurance benefits after her former husband of 20 years was granted old-age insurance benefits. When she applied for benefits, Mrs. De Castro was 56 years old and was caring for a disabled child of the marriage who was receiving child’s insurance benefits. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, F. David Matthews, (defendant) denied the application because wife’s benefits are not payable to divorced wives under the age of 62. Mrs. De Castro filed suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that 202(1)(b)(B) of the Social Security Act is unconstitutional and an injunction against the section’s application. The district court held that the provision was unconstitutional because it invidiously discriminated against divorced wives. The holding was based on a finding of no rational basis for concluding married wives caring for dependent children have greater hardship than divorced wives. Matthews appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Employment Law

Key Terms