 | This article contains too many or overly lengthy quotations. (February 2020) |
| Helvering v. Davis | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued May 5, 1937 Decided May 24, 1937 | |
| Full case name | Guy T. Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Davis |
| Citations | 301 U.S. 619 (more) 57 S. Ct. 904; 81 L. Ed. 1307; 1937 U.S. LEXIS 1200 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Davis v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. of Boston, 18 F. Supp. 1 (D. Mass. 1937); reversed, 89 F.2d 393 (1st Cir. 1937); cert. granted, 301 U.S. 674 (1937). |
| Holding | |
| The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way. The Social Security Act of 1935 does not contravene the Tenth Amendment, as Congress is permitted to spend for the general welfare. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Cardozo, joined by Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, Sutherland, Van Devanter, and Roberts |
| Dissent | McReynolds, joined by Butler |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. Art. I § 8, amend. X; Social Security Act of 1935 | |
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.[1]
The Court's 7–2 decision defended the constitutionality of the old-age benefit program of the Social Security Act of 1935 by requiring only welfare spending to 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.
- ^ Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).
This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
