## Facts

- Robert and Karen Capato married in 1999; after Robert was diagnosed with cancer, he deposited sperm before chemotherapy to preserve the possibility of future conception.
- Karen later conceived naturally; the couple had a son in August 2001.
- Robert died in March 2002 while domiciled in Florida and insured for Social Security purposes.
- Robert’s will left assets to his then-existing children but did not provide for any future children.
- In September 2003, approximately 18 months after Robert’s death, Karen gave birth to twins conceived via in vitro fertilization using Robert’s frozen sperm.
- Karen applied for Social Security child’s insurance (survivor) benefits for the twins based on Robert’s earnings record.
- The Social Security Administration denied benefits because the twins could not inherit from Robert under Florida intestacy law; an ALJ and the district court affirmed.
- The Third Circuit reversed, holding the twins were “children” under the Act based on undisputed biological parentage within marriage, without regard to state intestacy law.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Title II of the Social Security Act, posthumously conceived biological children qualify as “children” entitled to survivor benefits when they are not heirs under the insured’s state intestacy law.
2. Whether the Commissioner must apply the insured’s domiciliary state intestacy law under 42 U.S.C. § 416(h)(2)(A) in determining “child” status for § 402(d) benefits.
3. Whether the SSA’s interpretation tying eligibility to state intestacy law is entitled to Chevron deference.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Third Circuit and remanded.
- The Court upheld the SSA’s interpretation that a posthumously conceived child qualifies for survivors’ benefits only if the child can inherit from the insured under the intestacy law of the insured’s domiciliary state at death (or satisfies specified statutory alternatives not met here).
- Because Florida intestacy law did not recognize the twins as heirs of Robert, the twins were not “children” eligible for Title II survivors’ benefits.

## Legal Principles

- For Title II child’s insurance benefits, the Act links “child” status to the determination method in 42 U.S.C. § 416(h), including the mandatory application (“shall apply”) of the insured’s domiciliary state intestacy law under § 416(h)(2)(A).
- Section 416(h) operates as the primary implementation of the Act’s definition of “child” for benefit eligibility, not merely as an optional or fallback route when status is uncertain.
- Congress’s use of state intestacy law functions as a proxy for dependency and family responsibility, aligning survivors’ benefits with the program’s focus on persons supported by the wage earner during life.
- Where the statute leaves ambiguity concerning new family-formation circumstances (including posthumous assisted reproduction), the SSA’s long-standing, regulation-based construction is entitled to Chevron deference if permissible.

## Conclusion

The Court held that posthumously conceived biological children are eligible for Social Security survivors’ benefits only if they qualify as the insured’s “children” under the insured’s state intestacy law (or satisfy statutory alternatives), and it deferred to the SSA’s reasonable interpretation applying that framework to deny benefits under Florida law.


Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 541 (2012)