WASHINGTON — Children conceived with a dead father’s frozen sperm are not entitled to Social Security benefits if they were not eligible to inherit property from him under state law, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.
The case concerned twins born to Karen Capato 18 months after the death of her husband, Robert, in 2002.
The Social Security Administration denied the twins survivors’ benefits, a determination the Supreme Court endorsed.
The case, Astrue v. Capato, No. 11-159, turned on the interpretation of provisions of the Social Security Act.
“The technology that made the twins’ conception and birth possible, it is safe to say, was not contemplated by Congress” in 1939 and 1965, when those provisions were enacted, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court.
The law was designed, she wrote, “to benefit primarily those supported by the deceased wage earner in his or her lifetime.”
Its key provision, Ginsburg wrote, was one calling for the Social Security Administration to look to state laws concerning inheritance “in determining whether an applicant is the child” of the parent in question.
The Capatos lived in Florida, and Robert Capato’s will was signed there.
Under Florida law, a child born after a parent’s death may inherit property from the parent only if conceived during the parent’s lifetime.
State laws take varying approaches to that question, meaning that whether such children are entitled to survivors’ benefits under Social Security will also vary.
Ginsburg said that looking to state law to decide eligibility for Social Security benefits was “a workable substitute for burdensome case-by-case determinations whether the child was, in fact, dependent on her father’s earnings.”
Congress remains free to adopt a different approach, Ginsburg concluded.
“Tragic circumstances — Robert Capato’s death before he and his wife could raise a family — gave rise to this case,” she wrote.
“But the law Congress enacted calls for resolution of Karen Capato’s application for child’s insurance benefits by reference to state intestacy law. We cannot replace that reference by creating a uniform federal rule the statute’s text scarcely supports.”
Other Supreme Court actions
In other actions at the Supreme Court on Monday, justices:
Left intact a $675,000 jury verdict against Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, who downloaded and redistributed thousands of songs from the Internet without paying.
Told a lower court to reconsider whether some types of ideas can be patented, setting aside a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that allowed a patent for a way to make consumers watch advertisements before they can view copyrighted material on the Web.
Agreed to decide whether a challenge to a 2008 amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that broadened the government’s power to monitor international communications may proceed. The challenge was brought by lawyers, journalists and human rights groups who contend the law allows the government to intercept their international telephone calls and e-mails.
Ruled that interpretation and translation are not the same thing when it comes to paying fees associated with federal civil lawsuits.
Information for this article was contributed by Susan Decker of Bloomberg News, Adam Liptak of The New York Times and The Associated Press.
Front Section, Pages 4 on 05/22/2012