Bowen v. Roy (1985)
- Docket
- 84-780
- Decided
- 1985-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the free exercise clause of the First Amendment provide an exception to the social security number requirement to receive state and federal welfare benefits? Conclusion: No. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, writing for seven members of the court, vacated the lower judgment and remanded. The Supreme Court held that the social security requirement did not violate the First Amendment and the injunction against the government was vacated. The requirement was entirely neutral in religious terms, and was a reasonable means of preventing welfare fraud. The First Amendment does not require the government to aid individuals in carrying out their religious beliefs. Justice Harry A. Blackmun concurred in part, expressing that the entire lower judgment should be vacated because the record was unclear as to whether a justiciable controversy remained. Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in part and concurred in the result, expressing that the Roy’s claim for benefits was either moot or not ripe for decision. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing that the government failed to show that allowing an exception to the social security requirement for those with legitimate religious objections would harm the state’s interest in preventing welfare fraud. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. and Justice Thurgood Marshall joined in Justice O’Connor’s opinion. Justice Byron R. White dissented, arguing that prior precedent clearly showed that requiring a social security number to receive benefits in spite of legitimate religious objections clearly violated the First Amendment.