42 U.S.C. § 1304
Reservation of right to amend or repeal
The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this chapter is hereby reserved to the Congress.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2024 · leading case: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
“…“[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision” of that statute. 42 U. S. C. §1304 . So it does. But “if Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal mon- eys, it must do so unambiguously.” Pennhurst, <a href="/opinion/110458/pennhurs”
Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment (1986)
“42 U. S. C. § 1304 . 2 As of 1983, more than 90% of the Nation’s paid employees, a total of more than 115 million people, participated in the Social Security System.”
Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo (1979)
“648 , 42 U. S. C. § 1304 . While the Railroad Retirement Act does not expressly incorporate that very language, it definitely does so indirectly, because the minimum Railroad Retirement Act benefit is the benefit that would have been received under the Social Security Act.”
Flemming v. Nestor (1960)
“648 , 42 U. S. C. § 1304 . That provision makes express what is implicit in the institutional needs of the program.”
Olson v. Olson (1989)
“" 42 U.S.C. § 1304 . Thus, there are both pre-conditions to benefits and uncertainties in benefits.”
Califano v. Webster (1977)
“Congress expressly reserved "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1304 , and the Fifth Amendment "does not forbid .”
Jackson v. Sollie (2016)
“…reserves “[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision” of the SSA. 42 U.S.C. § 1304 (2012). Unlike a CSRS pension, Social Security benefits are not considered property, but instead are considered non-contractual benefits. Flemming, <a href="/opinion/10”
Florida Ex Rel. Attorney General v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (2011)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 1304 ("The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this chapter is hereby reserved to the Congress.”
Public Agencies Opposed to Social Security Entrapment v. Heckler (1985)
“According to the defendants, 42 U.S.C. § 1304 gives the Secretary the right to alter or amend the Social Security Act no matter what effect any such alterations or amendments might have on the Agreement.”
Gray v. Gray (2003)
“" 42 U.S.C. § 1304 (1994). This language emphasizes the difference between social security benefits and pension plans.”
Umber v. Umber (1979)
“The Court’s rationalization was based on 1) the social security system is a tax and 2) 42 U.S.C. § 1304 5 reserves the right to alter or repeal any provision of the Act which is not arbitrary.”
In Re Marriage of Crook (2004)
“42 U.S.C. § 1304 (2000). Because Congress reserved the authority to amend or repeal provisions of the Act, the United States Supreme Court has held that Social Security beneficiaries have a “noncontractual interest” in Social Security benefits, and that these benefits are not to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.