Difference between revisions of "Flemming v. Nestor"
m (category) |
(improved, expanded) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Flemming v. Nestor''' is a | + | '''''Flemming v. Nestor''''', 404 U.S. 78, 92 S. Ct. 254 (1971), is a [[Supreme Court]] decision ruling that there is no contractual right to money paid into [[Social Security]].<ref>[https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-there-right-social-security Is There a Right to Social Security?]</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | In ''Flemming v. Nestor'', the Court held that the old-age benefits of an alien, deported for cause under the Immigration and Nationality Act, could be lawfully terminated without violating the Due Process Clause of the [[Fifth Amendment]]. There the Supreme Court rationalized that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the Social Security Act cannot be analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, where the right to benefits is based on a contractual duty to pay premiums, and further, that to hold otherwise would render the law too inflexible to permit necessary adjustment to ever-changing conditions. There were three dissenting opinions, by Justices Black, Douglas and Brennan each, who insisted that the alien had a property right in his old-age benefits and to deprive him of them was a violation of due process. But the Court majority rejected that contractual view of Social Security. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A decade later a district court held that ''Nestor'' was no longer good law, and the Supreme Court then reversed. ''See'' ''Belcher v. Richardson'', 317 F. Supp. 1294, 1297-98 (S.D. W. Va. 1970), ''rev'd'', 404 U.S. 78, 92 S. Ct. 254 (1971). | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 16:11, March 24, 2019
Flemming v. Nestor, 404 U.S. 78, 92 S. Ct. 254 (1971), is a Supreme Court decision ruling that there is no contractual right to money paid into Social Security.[1]
In Flemming v. Nestor, the Court held that the old-age benefits of an alien, deported for cause under the Immigration and Nationality Act, could be lawfully terminated without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. There the Supreme Court rationalized that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the Social Security Act cannot be analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, where the right to benefits is based on a contractual duty to pay premiums, and further, that to hold otherwise would render the law too inflexible to permit necessary adjustment to ever-changing conditions. There were three dissenting opinions, by Justices Black, Douglas and Brennan each, who insisted that the alien had a property right in his old-age benefits and to deprive him of them was a violation of due process. But the Court majority rejected that contractual view of Social Security.
A decade later a district court held that Nestor was no longer good law, and the Supreme Court then reversed. See Belcher v. Richardson, 317 F. Supp. 1294, 1297-98 (S.D. W. Va. 1970), rev'd, 404 U.S. 78, 92 S. Ct. 254 (1971).