WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a man’s children who were conceived through artificial insemination after his death cannot get Social Security survivor benefits.
Justices unanimously ruled that twins born to Robert Capato’s surviving wife, Karen, did not qualify for survivor benefits because of a requirement that the federal government use state inheritance laws.
The Capato twins, conceived using Mr. Capato’s frozen sperm, were born 18 months after their father died of esophageal cancer. Mrs. Capato’s application for survivor benefits on behalf of the twins was rejected by the Social Security Administration, which said Mr. Capato needed to be alive during the children’s conception to qualify. A federal judge agreed, saying they had to qualify as Mr. Capato’s children before his death or qualify under state inheritance law as children who could legally inherit.
Mr. Capato died a Florida resident, and Florida law expressly bars children conceived posthumously from inheritance, unless they are named in a will. The only beneficiaries named in Mr. Capato’s will are his wife, their son and his two children from a previous marriage.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia overturned that decision, saying the Capato twins were clearly the biological children of Mr. Capato and deserved the survivor benefits. But other federal appellate courts have ruled differently in similar cases, leaving the Supreme Court to come to a final conclusion.
“We find the Social Security Administration’s ruling better attuned to the statute’s text and its design to benefit primarily those the deceased wage earner actually supported in his or her lifetime,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote. “And even if the agency’s longstanding interpretation is not the only reasonable one, it is at least a permissible construction entitled to deference.”
The case was heard by the Philadelphia appeals court because Mrs. Capato unsuccessfully argued that her children should have been considered citizens of New Jersey, which has different inheritance laws from Florida. The twins were conceived in Florida, but Mrs. Capato moved to New Jersey during the pregnancy.
Justice Ginsburg called Mr. Capato’s death before he and his wife could provide their children with additional siblings “tragic.”
But “the law Congress enacted calls for resolution of Karen Capato’s application for child’s insurance benefits by reference to state intestacy law,” she said. “We cannot replace that reference by creating a uniform federal rule that statute’s text scarcely supports.”
The Supreme Court also on Monday:
• Refused to hear a Boston University student’s constitutional challenge to a $675,000 penalty for illegally downloading and sharing 30 songs on the Internet. A federal judge still can consider reducing the fine for Joel Tenenbaum of Providence, R.I.
• Ruled that Kan Pacific Saipan Ltd. did not deserve to get $5,517.20 in compensation for interpreters for fighting off a lawsuit from a Japanese professional baseball player. The court ruled that translating written documents was not the same as “compensation of interpreters,” which can be charged to losing parties.
• Refused to let an immigrant brought to the United States as a child use his parents’ legal status to claim an exception from deportation for criminal activities. Immigrants facing deportation can get an exception if they’ve been here for at least seven continuous years and have been legally registered as an immigrant for at least five years. Carlos Martinez Gutierrez said that since his parents brought him to the United States, he should be able to use their status to qualify for the exception. The court said no.
• Decided to hear arguments over shutting down a legal challenge to a law that lets the United States eavesdrop on overseas communications. The justices will hear arguments in the fall over whether a lawsuit filed by lawyers, journalists and human rights groups objecting to the latest version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act could proceed.
• Refused to hear a challenge to redistricting in Illinois despite complaints from the League of Women Voters of Illinois that the new congressional and legislative lines are unconstitutional.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.