Helvering v. Davis
Helvering v. Davis is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1937, which upheld the constitutionality of the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935. The Court, in a 7-2 decision, interpreted the federal government's power to tax and spend broadly under Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo emphasized that the Tenth Amendment did not limit the federal government's role in welfare, asserting that the Social Security Act was a necessary response to the national economic crisis of the time. This ruling affirmed the federal government's authority to engage in social welfare programs aimed at supporting citizens in need. The decision underscored the evolving understanding of federal responsibility for public welfare, particularly during periods of economic hardship. The case is significant for its implications on the extent of federal power and the development of social safety nets in the United States. Understanding Helvering v. Davis helps contextualize the ongoing debates regarding the scope and limits of government intervention in social welfare.
Helvering v. Davis
Date: May 24, 1937
Citation: 301 U.S. 619
Issue: General welfare clause
Significance: The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935.
By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935. Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, in the opinion for the Court, adopted a broad view of the federal congressional power to tax and spend under Article I, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. Cardozo rejected the argument that the Tenth Amendment traditionally held that taxing and spending on welfare was the province of the states, not the federal government. He noted that the Social Security Act was, in part, a response to a national calamity to which Congress surely had the power to respond.
