The U.S. Supreme Court case Astrue v. Capato in 2011 revolved around the issue of whether children conceived posthumously through in vitro fertilization are eligible for Social Security survivor benefits. Karen Capato, the respondent, sought these benefits for her twins who were conceived using her deceased husband's frozen sperm and born eighteen months after his death from cancer. The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied her application on grounds that under Florida law - where the couple lived before Mr.Capato's death - a child must be able to inherit property at the time of a parent’s death to qualify as their child for purposes of survivorship benefits; since they weren't yet conceived when he died, they didn't meet this requirement. In an unanimous decision led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was ruled that SSA correctly interpreted federal social security law which ties eligibility criteria to state inheritance laws; hence Mrs.Capato's twins did not qualify for survivorship benefits because according to Florida intestacy law they couldn’t inherit their father’s property.

In the dissenting opinion for Astrue v. Capato, Justice Alito argued that the majority's interpretation of the Social Security Act was too narrow and failed to account for modern reproductive technologies like in vitro fertilization. He contended that a child conceived after a parent's death but using that parent's frozen sperm or eggs should still be considered their biological offspring and thus eligible for survivor benefits under social security law. According to him, such children are not "posthumously conceived" because conception occurs when an egg is fertilized by sperm, regardless of whether this happens before or after one parent’s death. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority ruling which denied social security benefits to posthumously conceived children unless they could inherit from their deceased parents under state intestacy law.