Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Jimenez Et Al. v. Weinberger, Secretary Of Health, Education, And Welfare

• 1973 • 417 U.S. 628 • Burger Court
In the case of Jimenez et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that a provision under Social Security law denying disability insurance benefits to disabled individuals who were not insured at the time they became disabled was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs argued that this provision violated their rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment as it discriminated against them based on their employment status when they became...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1973
Docket: 72-6609
417 U.S. 628
94 S. Ct. 2496
41 L. Ed. 2d 363
1974 U.S. LEXIS 77
Argued: Mar 18, 1974

Jimenez Et Al. v. Weinberger, Secretary Of Health, Education, And Welfare

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Jimenez et al. v. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that a provision under Social Security law denying disability insurance benefits to disabled individuals who were not insured at the time they became disabled was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs argued that this provision violated their rights to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment as it discriminated against them based on their employment status when they became disabled. The court agreed with this argument and found that there was no rational basis for such discrimination since all workers contribute to Social Security regardless of whether or not they are employed at any given moment in time.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Jimenez et al. v. Weinberger, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a violation of equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. He contended that denying Social Security benefits to illegitimate children based on their parents' marital status was discriminatory and unjustifiable. According to him, such discrimination against innocent children who had no control over their birth circumstances was not only unfair but also contrary to societal norms and values which aim at protecting all children regardless of their legitimacy status. Furthermore, he pointed out that this ruling would have far-reaching implications affecting millions of illegitimate children across America who depend on these benefits for survival and well-being.

Opinion written by Justice WEBurger
Decided: Jun 19, 1974
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms