Weinberger v. Salfi
- Decided
- June 26, 1975
- Docket
- 74-214
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,721 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that where exhaustion is statutorily mandated, “[t]he requirement ... may not be dispensed with merely by a judicial conclusion of futility” — Douglas Nyhuis v. Janet Reno, Attorney General Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General Kathleen Hawk, Director-Bop John Hahn, Warden (2000)
- holding that where exhaustion is a statutorily specified jurisdictional prerequisite, “the requirement ... may not be dispensed with merely by a judicial conclusion of futility” — Alexander v. Hawk (1998)
- holding that the "final decision” requirement of a section of the Social Security Act that confers subject-matter jurisdiction on district courts is a "statutorily specified jurisdictional prerequisite” — Trudeau v. Federal Trade Commission (2006)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, its Secretary, the Social Security Administration and various of its officials, appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California invalidating duration-of-relationship [*753] Social Security eligibility requirements for surviving wives and stepchildren of deceased wage earners. 373 F. Supp. 961 (1974).
That court concluded that it had jurisdiction of the action by virtue of 28 U. S. C. § 1331, and eventually certified the case as a class action. On the merits, it concluded that the nine-month requirements of §§ 216 (c) (5) and (e) (2) of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 620, as added, 64 Stat. 510, and as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§416 (c)(5) and (e)(2) (1970 ed. and Supp. Ill), constituted “irrebuttable presumptions” which were constitutionally invalid under the authority of Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632 (1974); Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441 (1973); and Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645 (1972). We hold that the District Court did not have jurisdiction of this action under 28 U. S. C. § 1331, and that while it had jurisdiction of the claims of the named appellees under the provisions of 42 U. S. C. § 405 (g), it had no jurisdiction over the claims asserted on behalf of unnamed class members. We further decide that the District Court was wrong on the merits of the constitutional question tendered by the named appellees.
Statutes cited
- 28 U.S.C. § 1331
- 42 U.S.C. § 416
- 42 U.S.C. § 405
- 38 U.S.C. § 211
- 42 U.S.C. § 402
- 28 U.S.C. § 41
- 42 U.S.C. § 401
- 28 U.S.C. § 2282
- 28 U.S.C. § 1253
Cite this
Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.