## Facts

- Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian-born lawful permanent resident, immigrated to the United States in 1913 and worked for many years, paying Social Security taxes for about 19 years.
- Nestor became eligible for Social Security old-age benefits in November 1955 and began receiving monthly payments.
- Congress enacted Social Security Act § 202(n), providing that an alien’s old-age benefits would terminate if, after September 1, 1954, the alien was deported on specified grounds under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- In July 1956, Nestor was deported based on past Communist Party membership (1933–1939), a ground covered by § 202(n).
- The agency terminated Nestor’s benefits and notified him (and also notified his wife, who remained in the United States).
- Nestor claimed his prior contributions and current receipt of payments gave him an accrued property right that could not be revoked consistently with the Fifth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a three-judge district court was required because the suit challenged the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
2. Whether termination of Social Security old-age benefits under § 202(n) deprived Nestor of a vested or accrued property right in violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
3. Whether § 202(n) was so arbitrary as to violate due process under rational-basis review.
4. Whether § 202(n) imposed unconstitutional punishment without trial, or constituted a bill of attainder or ex post facto law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the district court and upheld § 202(n) as constitutional.
- A three-judge district court was not required because the action sought judicial review of an administrative benefits decision, not an injunction restraining enforcement of a federal statute.
- Social Security old-age benefits are noncontractual statutory benefits; coverage and contributions do not create a vested property right immune from alteration or termination.
- Section 202(n) was not patently arbitrary or utterly lacking in rational justification; Congress could rationally link deportation on specified grounds to termination of benefits.
- Termination of benefits under § 202(n) was not unconstitutional punishment and did not violate prohibitions on bills of attainder or ex post facto laws.

## Legal Principles

- Social Security benefits are statutory entitlements rather than contractual or vested property rights; Congress may change eligibility and payment rules.
- Due process permits modification or termination of such benefits so long as the legislation is not patently arbitrary and lacks no rational justification.
- A suit seeking review of an administrative application of a statute does not necessarily trigger three-judge-court procedures reserved for suits seeking to enjoin enforcement of federal statutes.
- A measure that imposes financial detriment does not, without more, constitute punishment for purposes of Article III, the Sixth Amendment, or the Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Clauses.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Congress could terminate Social Security old-age benefits for an alien deported on specified grounds without violating the Fifth Amendment, because the benefits are noncontractual statutory entitlements subject to rational-basis review and the termination provision was treated as regulatory rather than punitive.


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