<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic 1960  Supreme Court Case - Flemming v. Nestor - NOT A Contractual Right; Congress Controls in Social Security</title>
    <link>https://community.aarp.org/t5/Social-Security/1960-Supreme-Court-Case-Flemming-v-Nestor-NOT-A-Contractual/m-p/2609173#M7365</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes, this is still the current interpretation of Social Security as an entitlement of benefits from contributions made over time -&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html#:~:text=This%20is%20the%20issue%20finally,and%20was%20already%20receiving%20benefits" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;SSA.gov Social Security History -Supreme Court Case - Flemming v Nestor 1960&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;from the link ~&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. &lt;STRONG&gt;Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress."&lt;/STRONG&gt; Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. &lt;STRONG&gt;This is the issue finally settled by &lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Flemming v. Nesto&lt;/STRONG&gt;r&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and &lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is&amp;nbsp;&lt;FONT color="#0000FF"&gt;&lt;U&gt;NOT&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&amp;nbsp;a contractual right.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 23:49:15 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>GailL1</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-05-02T23:49:15Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>1960  Supreme Court Case - Flemming v. Nestor - NOT A Contractual Right; Congress Controls</title>
      <link>https://community.aarp.org/t5/Social-Security/1960-Supreme-Court-Case-Flemming-v-Nestor-NOT-A-Contractual/m-p/2609173#M7365</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes, this is still the current interpretation of Social Security as an entitlement of benefits from contributions made over time -&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html#:~:text=This%20is%20the%20issue%20finally,and%20was%20already%20receiving%20benefits" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;SSA.gov Social Security History -Supreme Court Case - Flemming v Nestor 1960&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;from the link ~&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. &lt;STRONG&gt;Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress."&lt;/STRONG&gt; Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. &lt;STRONG&gt;This is the issue finally settled by &lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;I&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Flemming v. Nesto&lt;/STRONG&gt;r&lt;/I&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and &lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;FONT color="#FF0000"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is&amp;nbsp;&lt;FONT color="#0000FF"&gt;&lt;U&gt;NOT&lt;/U&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&amp;nbsp;a contractual right.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 23:49:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.aarp.org/t5/Social-Security/1960-Supreme-Court-Case-Flemming-v-Nestor-NOT-A-Contractual/m-p/2609173#M7365</guid>
      <dc:creator>GailL1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-05-02T23:49:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

