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

Richardson, Secretary Of Health, Education, And Welfare v. Wright Et Al.

• 1971 • 405 U.S. 208 • Burger Court
In the case of Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Wright et al., 1971, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding Social Security benefits. The plaintiffs were widows who had been denied mother's insurance benefits under the Social Security Act because they did not have minor children in their care at the time of their husbands' deaths. They argued that this requirement was unconstitutional as it violated due process and equal protection principles by...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: 1971
Docket: 70-161
405 U.S. 208
92 S. Ct. 788
31 L. Ed. 2d 151
1972 U.S. LEXIS 88
Argued: Jan 13, 1972

Richardson, Secretary Of Health, Education, And Welfare v. Wright Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Wright et al., 1971, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding Social Security benefits. The plaintiffs were widows who had been denied mother's insurance benefits under the Social Security Act because they did not have minor children in their care at the time of their husbands' deaths. They argued that this requirement was unconstitutional as it violated due process and equal protection principles by discriminating against them based on marital status and sex. The court held that these provisions did not violate either principle. It reasoned that Congress intended to provide immediate assistance to surviving spouses with minor children in their care after a wage earner’s death - an objective which is legitimate within its broad power to set up classifications for social security purposes. Therefore, denying benefits to those without dependent children was rational and related directly to achieving this goal. Furthermore, there was no discrimination based on sex or marital status since both men and women could qualify for such benefits if they met all requirements including having custody of minor children at the time of spouse's death.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare v. Wright et al., Justice Douglas argued that the Social Security Act should be interpreted to provide benefits to children who were dependent on a deceased parent at any point prior to their death rather than only those who were dependent at the time of death. He believed that this interpretation was more consistent with Congress's intent when it passed the Act and would better serve its purpose of providing economic security for families. Furthermore, he contended that denying benefits based on whether or not a child was currently receiving support from a deceased parent could lead to arbitrary results because it did not take into account fluctuations in income or other changes in circumstances which might affect dependency status over time.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Feb 24, 1972
PDF viewer is not available.
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