Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
SCOTUS Case

Bowen v. Roy

Primary source

Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). We link back to the source for attribution; edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.

Background

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1986 United States Supreme Court case

Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case which ruled that a government program requiring the use of a Social Security number did not violate the First Amendment .

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowen_v._Roy&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

The plaintiffs were Native American parents who had applied for financial assistance under a U.S. government welfare program. One of the requirements to receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps under these programs was that the applicants supply Social Security numbers for their children and themselves. The plaintiffs refused to do so for their daughter, named Little Bird of the Snow, as they claimed use of this number outside her choosing to do so when she came of age, a form of spiritual self-actualization, would violate their religious beliefs. Their belief was that using a Social Security number to identify her would diminish her spiritual uniqueness and "rob her spirit". At trial Roy testified "...It serves unique purposes. It's applied to her and only her; and being applied to her, that's what offends us, and we try to keep her person unique, and we try to keep her spirit unique, and we're scared that if we were to use this number, she would lose control of that and she would have no ability to protect herself from any evil that that number might be used against her." Other religious faiths had expressed closely similar objections — biblical Christians quoting Revelation, asserting that the SSN is one of a system of numbers the Antichrist will cause all people in American society to accept and use in order to function, to buy or sell goods, or Social Security numbers are the "mark of the beast ", of the Antichrist who threatens to control the world and to accept a number is to "serve the beast".

When the Roys refused to provide a Social Security number for their daughter, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare cut benefits for Little Bird of the Snow to comply with federal guidelines. The Roys then filed suit, claiming infringement of their right to practice their religion. In the Middle District Court for Pennsylvania , both sides stipulated before and during trial that Little Bird of the Snow did not have a Social Security number. During the last day of the trial, the Social Security Administration disclosed it did, after a search, already possess a Social Security number issued shortly after Little Bird of the Snow's birth.

In its brief before the Court, the government's brief informed the Social Security Administration "...itself assigns [Social Security numbers] to persons who are required by federal law to have one but decline to complete an application. If, for religious reasons, the individual requiring [a Social Security number] does not wish to receive a Social Security card, the agency will accommodate that request. Similarly, when an applicant refuses to sign an application for [a Social Security number] on religious grounds, [Social Security Administration personnel] may sign in lieu of the applicant."

Decision

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowen_v._Roy&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Decision")
]

The Supreme Court ruled that the government's use of a Social Security number for the child did not impair her family's freedom to "believe, express and exercise" their religion, and that the plaintiffs' claim was without merit. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger noted that "never to our knowledge has the Court interpreted the First Amendment to require the Government itself to behave in ways that the individual believes will further his or her spiritual development or that of his or her family", vacating an injunction entered by the District Court enjoining use of a Social Security number by the government.[_citation needed
_]

Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice O'Connor noted, "The Government still refuses to concede that it should now provide welfare benefits to Little Bird of the Snow, even though it now claims to possess Little Bird of the Snow's Social Security number."

By a plurality decision , it was remanded back to the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, for a hearing on whether the government complied with the Privacy Act in issuing and using a Social Security number. The case was eventually settled with the plaintiffs and government agreeing that all records and data in all its computers containing a Social Security number for Little Bird of the Snow Roy were to be eradicated or erased.[_citation needed
_]

See also

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowen_v._Roy&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: See also")
]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowen_v._Roy&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. 1 2 Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986).  This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document .
  2. ↑ Bowen v. Roy , Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs (last visited June 17, 2018).
  3. ↑ Bowen, 476 U.S. at 697.
  4. ↑ App. 85
  5. ↑ Stevens v. Burger, 428 F. Supp. 896 , 897, 901-05 (E.D.N.Y. 1977); Callahan v. Woods, 736 F.2d 1269 , 1271-72 (9th Cir. 1984).
  6. ↑ Bowen v. Roy . Supreme Court Case Files Collection. Box 123. Powell Papers. Lewis F. Powell Jr. Archives, Washington & Lee University School of Law, Virginia.
  7. ↑ Bowen, 476 U.S. at 719.
  8. ↑ Bowen, 476 U.S. at 718, n. 7.
  9. ↑ Bowen, 476 U.S. at 725 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowen_v._Roy&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: External links")
]

…

Read the full Wikipedia article

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.