Burns v. Alcala

1975-03-18

Headline: Court rules 'dependent child' excludes unborn children, reversing lower courts and allowing states to withhold AFDC welfare for unborn children while constitutional issues go back to lower courts.

Holding: In a statutory ruling, the Court held that the Social Security Act's term "dependent child" does not include unborn children, reversing the lower courts and remanding unresolved constitutional claims to the lower courts.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to withhold AFDC payments for unborn children.
Sends equal protection and due process questions back to lower courts.
Leaves optional federal matching payments by HEW unresolved.

Topics: welfare eligibility, pregnant women and welfare, federal funding rules, unborn children

Summary

Background

A group of pregnant women in Iowa applied for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits on behalf of their unborn children and were denied because they had no child yet born. They sued state welfare officials, and lower courts found that unborn children fit the federal definition of "dependent child" and ordered benefits. The case reached the Supreme Court to resolve split rulings in other federal courts.

Reasoning

The Court examined the statutory definition in §406(a) of the Social Security Act and concluded that the word "child" refers to someone already born and living separately from the mother. The majority noted the age and "living with" language in the statute, the separate prenatal programs Congress created in Title V, and the awkward fit of other statutory provisions if unborn children were included. The Court also found that the agency rule allowing optional payments for pregnant women did not prove that Congress meant to include unborn children in the federal eligibility standard.

Real world impact

Because the Court read the federal statute not to cover unborn children, states are not required under the federal AFDC standard to pay benefits on behalf of unborn children. The Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings on the statutory question and sent the case back for the lower courts to decide the equal protection and due process claims that the courts below did not decide.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented, arguing that longstanding administrative practice and ambiguous history supported treating unborn children as eligible and that the lower courts should have been affirmed.