• Unanimous Supreme Court health care decision

    Not the one you expect. I’m talking about Social Security Administration v. Capato. From the syllabus:

    Eighteen months after her husband, Robert Capato, died of cancer, respondent Karen Capato gave birth to twins conceived through in vitro fertilization using her husband’s frozen sperm. Karen applied for Social Security survivors benefits for the twins. The Social Security Administration (SSA) denied her application, …

    Facing a statute that didn’t anticipate modern assisted reproductive technology, the Court unanimously agreed that the twins are not Robert Capato’s “children of the marriage” eligible for Social Security benefits because they were conceived after his death. Not clear how the Court would have ruled if the IV conception had occurred before his death, but the implantation was posthumous.

    Perfect case for law school discussions.

    h/t Adam B at DailyKos

    @koutterson

    Share
    Comments closed
     
    • The article I read said that they left the current determination for social security benefits in place.

      That rule is that if you are eligible to inherit from the deceased in the state then you are eligible for benefits. Apparently in the state of Florida they were not eligible. It wouldn’t appear that it’s something Federal courts have power over, it’s a state rule.

      • You are right – they left the current Social Security Administration rule in place, relying on Florida law. It’s not a constitutional decision, just a statutory interpretation of Federal law.

    • Could you edit the article itself to reflect the above two comments for people who don’t click through to the comments? This strikes me as a major change from the tone of the article.