Bowen v. Roy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bowen v. Roy

Argued January 14, 1986
Decided June 11, 1986

Full case name:	Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Stephen J. Roy, et al.

Citations:	476 U.S. 693; 106 S. Ct. 2147; 90 L. Ed. 2d 735; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 52; 54 U.S.L.W. 4603

Prior history:	Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

Holding

The statutory requirement that a state agency utilize Social Security numbers in administering the programs in question does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. That Clause affords an individual protection from certain forms of governmental compulsion but does not afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the Government's internal procedures. The Government's use of a Social Security number for appellees' child does not itself impair appellees' freedom to exercise their religion.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor

Case opinions

Majority by: Burger (parts I, II)
Joined by: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor
Concurrence by: Burger (part III)
Joined by: Powell, Rehnquist
Concurrence by: Blackmun
Concurrence by: Stevens
Concurrence/dissent by: O'Connor
Joined by: Brennan, Marshall
Dissent by: White

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. I, Free Exercise Clause

Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986)^[1], was a United States Supreme Court case which helped to establish limits on freedom of religion in the United States.

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 benefits under this program was that the applicants provide Social Security numbers for their children and themselves. The plaintiffs refused to do so, as they claimed this would violate their religious beliefs; their belief was that using a technologically-derived number to identify her would diminish her spiritual uniqueness. When the government issued and used a Social Security Number for her without their consent, in violation of the Privacy Act, they filed suit, claiming infringement of their right to practice their religion.

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, 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." 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.