The Supreme Court this week heard arguments on whether children conceived after their father died are entitled to Social Security survivor benefits.
This Washington Post story indicates the court will not favor benefits for Florida twins as they would not have been entitled to inherit property under their state’s laws.
I could conduct a circular argument as to whether the children are entitled to the Social Security benefits and fail to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
As Justice Elena Kagan said, “It’s a mess.”
The children’s father obviously desired that they would be born, having made provisions for their creation. So are they entitled because they are “the child of an individual,” or are they not since they did not exist at the time their father died and would not be able to inherit personal property under state law?