October Term 2011 · Docket 11-159
Does state inheritance law define child survivor benefits?
The dispute centers on whether federal law requires applicants to prove state inheritance rights to receive child survivor benefits.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Miller argued the agency reasonably interpreted the Act to require state inheritance proof.
Mr. Rothfeld argued the statute unambiguously dictates the family's reading without state law references.
Chief Justice Roberts asked how the agency handles new reproductive technologies where state law is unclear.
Justice Alito suggested Congress may have assumed a clear definition of child without needing state law.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 38-10 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 38-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-50 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 38-46 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 38-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 10-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 10-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 16-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 16-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 30-42 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 30-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 48-8
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Social Security Administration interprets the Social Security Act to require proof of state inheritance eligibility. The Capato family argues the statute unambiguously defines eligibility without referencing state law. The government contends state intestacy law provides a reasonable standard for determining child status.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-50 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-36
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 19, 2012.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to uphold the use of state inheritance law as the eligibility standard.
The family wants the Court to reject the state law requirement and grant benefits based on federal definitions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-50 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-36
What each side says
The government argues the Social Security Act reasonably incorporates state intestacy law to define child status.
The family argues the statute is unambiguous and does not reference state inheritance law for eligibility.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-50 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-36
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked about the meaning of a specific statutory provision regarding state law status.
Justice Kagan questioned why Congress defined stepchildren without referencing state intestacy law in other sections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 38-10 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 38-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 38-46 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 38-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 10-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 10-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 16-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 16-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 30-42 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 30-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 48-8
Why it matters
This case determines how federal agencies define family relationships for benefit eligibility. It clarifies the relationship between federal benefits and state inheritance laws. The outcome affects millions of families seeking survivor benefits. It establishes a standard for interpreting statutory definitions of family status.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-50 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-36
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 38-10 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 38-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 38-46 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 38-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 6-8 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 6-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 10-30 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 10-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 48-14 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 48-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 22-36 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 22-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 16-32 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 16-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 18-20 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 18-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 30-42 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 30-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 48-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 48-8
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-50 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 4-50 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 4-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-36 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-36
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.