Citations 301 U.S. 619 (more) | End date 1937 | |
Full case name Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Davis Majority Cardozo, joined by Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, Sutherland, Van Devanter, and Roberts Dissent McReynolds, joined by Butler Similar United States v Butler, South Dakota v Dole, West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish, Wickard v Filburn, ALA Schechter Poultry C | ||
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare, and did not contravene the 10th Amendment. The Court's 7-2 decision defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935, requiring only that welfare spending be for the common benefit as distinguished from some mere local purpose. It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue, and that the tax upon employers was constitutional.
Contents
Facts
A shareholder of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company brought a derivative action to restrain the company from making payments and deductions required by the Social Security Act 1935 on the ground that it was unconstitutional. He sought an injunction, and a declaration that the Act was void.
Judgment
The Opinion of the Supreme Court in the case was written by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo. This decision supported the right of the Congress to interpret the "general welfare" clause in the U.S. Constitution.
Joining the decision was Justice Harlan Stone, who during the drafting of the legislation had advised Secretary Frances Perkins that the constitutionality of Social Security could be based upon "The taxing power of the Federal Government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need."