## Facts

- A surviving spouse married a covered wage earner on May 27, 1972; the wage earner died on November 21, 1972, less than six months after the marriage.
- The spouse applied for mother’s insurance benefits, and her minor daughter (the wage earner’s stepchild) applied for child’s insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
- The Social Security Administration denied both applications solely because the marital and stepchild relationships had not existed for at least nine months before the wage earner’s death, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 416(c)(5) and § 416(e)(2).
- The applicants filed a putative class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for similarly situated widows and stepchildren denied benefits under the nine-month rule.
- A three-judge district court asserted federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and held the nine-month rule unconstitutional as an “irrebuttable presumption,” enjoining enforcement.
- Federal officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) precludes federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for claims “arising under” Title II, requiring review (if any) exclusively under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
2. Whether the nine-month duration-of-relationship requirements for “widow” and “child” violate the Fifth Amendment by creating an unconstitutional classification or an invalid “irrebuttable presumption.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the district court.
- The Court held that § 405(h) bars § 1331 federal-question jurisdiction for claims “arising under” Title II, including constitutional challenges to benefit-eligibility provisions; review must proceed, if at all, under § 405(g).
- The Court treated the agency action as sufficiently “final” to support jurisdiction under § 405(g) in this case, while stressing that statutorily required exhaustion cannot be excused by a court’s view that further agency review would be futile.
- On the merits, the Court upheld the nine-month relationship requirements as constitutional under rational-basis review.
- The Court rejected the district court’s “irrebuttable presumption” framing and accepted Congress’s use of a bright-line eligibility rule to reduce sham claims and protect program administration.

## Legal Principles

- Section 405(h) makes § 405(g) the exclusive path for judicial review of claims “arising under” Title II and precludes federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 for such claims, even when the plaintiff asserts a constitutional challenge.
- A claim can “arise under” the Social Security Act when the Act supplies both the claimant’s standing and the substantive basis for the requested relief, even if the challenge is stated in constitutional terms.
- When Congress establishes eligibility lines in social insurance programs, the Fifth Amendment requires only that the classification be rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.
- Congress may employ general, administrable eligibility criteria to deter fraud and protect program funds, despite under- or over-inclusiveness, without providing individualized determinations for every claimant.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Title II claims must be reviewed only through the Social Security Act’s specified judicial-review mechanism and upheld the nine-month relationship requirement as a rational, constitutionally permissible eligibility rule aimed at deterring sham relationships and preserving orderly administration of benefits.


Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975)