## Facts

- Steven W. Therrien was incarcerated in Connecticut beginning February 13, 1979.
- Therrien’s father died fully insured under the Social Security Act.
- On May 8, 1979, Therrien applied for surviving-child (child’s) insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(1), based on his father’s earnings record.
- Therrien stated he intended to enroll in Western Illinois University through correspondence study.
- The Social Security Administration denied the claim, finding Therrien was not actually enrolled at the time of application and that correspondence study did not qualify for “full-time student” status under then-applicable regulations.
- The district court upheld the agency decision; after considering Therrien’s late objections as a Rule 60(b) request, it denied relief and left judgment for the Secretary in place.
- Therrien appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary’s regulation excluding correspondence school students from “full-time student” status was inconsistent with the Social Security Act’s student-benefit provisions.
2. Whether the enrollment/attendance requirements and the correspondence-study exclusion violated equal protection principles by discriminating against indigent (including incarcerated indigent) applicants.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the Secretary.
- The court held the regulation excluding correspondence students from “full-time student” status was a reasonable construction of the statute.
- The court held the challenged eligibility rules survived rational-basis review and did not violate equal protection.
- Because Therrien was not enrolled when he applied and the contemplated program was non-qualifying, denial of benefits was proper.

## Legal Principles

- When a benefits statute leaves operational details undefined (e.g., “full-time attendance” at an “educational institution”), an agency may supply workable definitions by regulation so long as the interpretation is reasonable and not contrary to the statute’s text.
- For Social Security child’s insurance benefits conditioned on student status, an agency may require actual enrollment and structured attendance and may exclude purely correspondence programs as not constituting “full-time attendance.”
- Equal protection challenges to facially neutral Social Security eligibility classifications that do not involve a suspect class or fundamental right are reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny.
- Under rational-basis review, line-drawing in social welfare programs is upheld if rationally related to legitimate administrative or policy aims, including verification of participation and directing benefits to substantial educational engagement.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld the denial of child’s insurance benefits to an incarcerated applicant, concluding that the agency’s exclusion of correspondence study from “full-time student” eligibility reasonably implemented the statute and that the enrollment and attendance requirements were constitutionally valid under rational-basis review.


Therrien v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 2 (2d Cir. 1986)