Thomas v. Sullivan
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
922 F.2d 132 (2d Cir. 1990)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Gertrude Thomas (plaintiff) and Joseph Thomas lived together for 47 years. In 1978, Gertrude applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for wife’s-insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Joseph submitted a statement attesting that the couple had been married by a clergyman in 1943 after Joseph’s first wife, Janie Mills, died. The SSA approved the benefits, and they automatically converted to widow’s benefits when Joseph died in 1985. However, shortly after Joseph’s death, Mills applied for benefits as Joseph’s widow, submitting a marriage certificate. When the SSA’s records’ search confirmed there was no evidence Joseph and Janie divorced, the SSA determined Janie to be Joseph’s lawful widow and ceased Gertrude’s benefits. Gertrude requested reconsideration, arguing that even if her marriage was invalid, she was nevertheless entitled to benefits as a deemed widow because she believed in good faith the marriage was valid. She claimed that she had obtained a Georgia marriage license, been married by an Atlanta minister, and relied on the minister to file the marriage certificate. Further, she said that Joseph told her he was divorced. The SSA found no evidence that a marriage license had been issued or a marriage certificate had been filed. Consequently, the SSA held that Gertrude was not a deemed widow because such classification applied only to invalid ceremonial marriages, not invalid common-law marriages, and there was no evidence of a ceremonial marriage. Gertrude sued Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan (defendant), alleging that treating invalid common-law marriages differently from invalid ceremonial marriages violated equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The district court disagreed, and Gertrude appealed to the Second Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kearse, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 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.


