Flemming v. Nestor

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article by providing more context for the reader. (December 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (December 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Flemming v. Nestor
U.S. LEXIS 917
Holding
Although this action drew into question the constitutionality of 202(n), it did not involve an injunction or otherwise interdict the operation of the statutory scheme; 28 U.S.C. § 2282 was not applicable; and jurisdiction over the action was properly exercised by the single-judge District Court.
Court membership
Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr. Charles E. Whittaker · Potter Stewart
Case opinions
Majority	Harlan, joined by Frankfurter, Clark, Whittaker, Stewart
Dissent	Black
Dissent	Douglas
Dissent	Brennan, joined by Warren, Douglas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Flemming v. Nestor

Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), was a

The Court ruled that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.

Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living abroad would not spend their payments domestically.

Critique

The case has been criticized on many grounds. In dissent, Justice Black argued that the Court's holding was motivated by anti-communist bias. Charles A. Reich argued that Social Security benefits should be considered to be "property" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Social Security, he argued, is a compulsory substitute for private property, is heavily relied on, and is important to beneficiaries. The beneficiary's right to Social Security, he argued, should not be subject to public policy considerations (especially not something resembling a loyalty oath, as was the case in Flemming). According to this argument, allowing government benefits to be revoked in this way too extensively threatens the system of private property. ^{[citation needed]}

Further reading

• Reich, Charles A. (1964). "The New Property".
  JSTOR 794645
  .
• Tani, Karen M. (2008). "Flemming v. Nestor: Anticommunism, the Welfare State, and the Making of 'New Property'". Law and History Review. 26 (2): 379–414.
  S2CID 145721289. Archived from the original
  on January 11, 2011.