Score One for the Technocrats
Administrative law has long been understood to be a law unto itself. Charged with the interpretation of complex statutes, the Supreme Court has taken a consistently deferential position toward agency interpretations of the statutes that they administer.
Nowhere was that more evident than in the case of Astrue v. Capato, decided earlier this week, where the question was whether IVF twins, conceived after their father died of esophageal cancer, could claim survivor benefits under the Social Security law.
The catch in the case was that the decedent’s will did not mention these posthumous children, so that the question of whether they counted as his children turned on Florida inheritance law. Michael Astrue, the Social Security Commissioner, decided to play hardball on the issue, and the Supreme Court--after an extended, mind-numbing exegesis of the word “child” under the Social Security law--held that his interpretation was correct, or at least correct enough to command the respect of the Court.
When I think about the problems of potential abuse in the administration of the Social Security system, this one does not rank in the top one million. No one has the slightest desire to heap indignity and deprivation on top of family charity. Yet the United States Supreme Court proved that, when it comes to administrative law, it does not have a heart, and it does not care about the personal issues involved in the case. That is, oddly enough, the correct attitude to take on legal matters.
But the same cannot be said for the Social Security Commission, which should have looked elsewhere to close down its own yawning deficit. One only hopes that Congress will pass a bit of ad hoc, retroactive legislation that says in this case, and all others like it, these children conceived after the death of their father should receive their benefits, regardless of the state laws of inheritance, which should be amended to cover the case in any event. If there were ever a case for big government this is it, so let’s hope that Congress can open this one purse string a little wider.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
May I respectfully file a dissent from Mr. Justice Epstein's "case for big government."
SSA benefits are to help cover the costs of raising children whom the deceased parent had every hope and intention of supporting until adulthood. For a mother to conceive children with the direct expectation that a government insurance program will help pay for them is akin to setting your house on fire before you leave to purchase a homeowner's policy.
Nov '11
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
I agree with EJ in respectfully dissenting with Mr. Epstein.
This seems like a pandora's box of potential problems and/or scams. Consider as a simple example, if posthumous IVF conception is enough to grant SSA death benefits, someone with a terminal condition could stockpile sperm with the idea that his heirs could sell off the sperm to various women whose children would then claim death benefits.
At some point, you have to draw a line for who is eligible and who isn't. Only covering children who were conceived or born at the time of death is a bright, clear line.
Jan '11
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
The law doesn't (and shouldn't) have a heart. I agree.
Neither should morality.
It wasn't a sound moral decision to have the children conceived after the father was already dead. (I presume that if the children were conceived before the father's death, the question of inheritance would be automatically in their favor.) But I have to scratch my head at the decision to have them conceived. That seems to reduce the children to commodities ... tokens to remember their father by. Or, it treats the father as a sperm producer, dismissing his importance in their upbringing. Either way, someone's unique humanity is being disrespected.
The irony is that now that the twins are born, we're compelled to respect their unique humanity ... in other words, we're compelled to show them the human respect that was ignored during the decision to conceive them.
Now that the twins are alive, we need to treat them with respect. After all, they didn't do anything wrong. But the law and morality ought to oppose conceiving children as commodities in the first place.
There's a lack of respect for humanity in the whole episode.
Aug '10
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
Expect to see the boilerplate for wills start to include lines like "any children conceived after my death".
Aug '10
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
I agree with EJ and Terry.
Apr '11
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
Yes BlueAnt, I was just about to post a similar thing.
Maybe, knowing that my DNA is on ice, I could say something to the effect that embryos 1 through 3 will share equally in the first 75% of my assets after my death, and any embryos implanted after that will share in 5% of the remainder until such assets are exhausted, with the last embryo to gain the remainder.
But then what happens if my widow finds someone to further subdivide my existing DNA and use it to conceive even further numbers than what existed with my knowledge before my death? Do those progeny also get a claim?
I can foresee probate going on for generations at that point.
Dec '10
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
Actually, this strikes me as the perfect case for demonstrating that there is never a case for Big Government. When SS was first proposed, it was sold as "for widows and orphans". Now, nearly 100 years later, the attempt was made to stretch it to cover gametes. Every other stretch has already been applied, we have just reached back to the beginning to see if we can find any limit, at all.
Perhaps the correct answer, all along, was that charity begins at home.
Aug '10
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
Aquozha:
But then what happens if my widow finds someone to further subdivide my existing DNA and use it to conceive even further numbers than what existed with my knowledge before my death? Do those progeny also get a claim?
I can foresee probate going on for generations at that point.
We're just one legal precedent away from re-creating Jarndyce and Jarndyce, in spectacular 21st century form.
Feb '12
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
I didn't read the opinion, but unless you're saying that it was the agency's call under Chevron and they blew it, shouldn't an agency also be heartless with respect to interpreting the law? The agency should have a heart where it has discretion, but if the law says X, the agency should do X
Sep '11
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
The mother went to quite a bit of trouble and expense to conceive this child; she should have done it in the expectation that she would be supporting it. I respectfully disagree, and recall that one of the founders (I forget which) said that he could not put his finger on the provision in the constitution which allowed for charity with public funds-- and that was about a situation far more worthy of compassion.
May '10
Re: Score One for the Technocrats
Morality trumps law. KC nails it.