et al. Heckler v. Mathews

In a series of 1977 rulings including Goldfarb, Silbowitz, and Jablon, the Supreme Court set into motion a public debate regarding the viability and future of retiree benefits as secured under the Social Security Act. Although the Court's decisions held gender discrimination as improper, its decisions also pushed Americans into making decisions about the priority of certain social values--one which society deemed fair, sexual equality, against the need to provide for retirees without bankrupting the system. Legislators grappled with the potential of a complete breakdown in the fiscal viability of the Social Security fund and the added pressure from retirees as voiced by the extremely strong lobby of the Association of Aged and Retired People. Their solution, a pension offset which would not take effect for five years, became an issue which eventually returned to the source of its instigation, the Supreme Court. The justices voted unanimously to uphold the amended language of the Social Security Act. Their unanimity, however, was not entirely self-motivated. While their decision averted a rift between the judiciary and legislative branches of government, the Court had maintained a consistency in their ruling which reflected historical Supreme Court jurisprudence. More importantly, their decision sought to define a perennial question which confronted and would continue to confront the Court in the years that followed. The issue revolved around the need to protect the rights of the minority and yet continue to sustain the will of the majority.