The Short Answer Is Both No and Yes

While Social Security benefits are often viewed as an earned right, Congress retains the authority to alter, amend, or even repeal provisions of the Social Security Act. Section 1104 of the Social Security Act of 1935, titled “Reservation of Power,” clearly states: “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.”

This authority was solidified by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Flemming v. Nestor. Below is a brief overview of the case and its implications.

Background

Social Security benefits are primarily funded through payroll taxes, creating a direct connection between the money workers contribute and the benefits they expect to receive. While this establishes a sense of entitlement, it’s important to recognize that Social Security benefits are not as secure as many may believe. More than just a moral or political right, Social Security benefits are subject to change by Congress, just like any other federal entitlement program.

Over the years, Congress has adjusted the rules governing eligibility and benefit levels, making the system both more generous and more restrictive at times. For instance, student benefits were significantly reduced in the 1983 Amendments, and in 1954, an amendment to the Social Security Act removed old-age benefits from individuals who were deported under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

One notable case that tested this principle involved Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant who had paid into the Social Security system for 19 years.

The Nestor v. Flemming Case

In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor, affirming the termination of benefits for Ephram Nestor after he was deported for his involvement with the Communist Party. Nestor had been receiving Social Security benefits for several years before his deportation, but under a 1954 amendment to the Social Security Act, individuals deported for reasons such as Communist Party affiliation were no longer eligible for benefits.

Nestor argued that his contributions to Social Security created a contract, and thus Congress could not revoke his benefits without due process. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that Social Security benefits are not a contractual right. The Court’s decision reinforced the principle that Congress has the authority to modify, suspend, or revoke benefits as it sees fit.

The short answer is both no and yes.

While Social Security benefits are often viewed as an earned right, Congress retains the authority to alter, amend, or even repeal provisions of the Social Security Act. Section 1104 of the Social Security Act of 1935, titled “Reservation of Power,” clearly states: “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.”

This authority was solidified by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Flemming v. Nestor. Below is a brief overview of the case and its implications.

Background

Social Security benefits are primarily funded through payroll taxes, creating a direct connection between the money workers contribute and the benefits they expect to receive. While this establishes a sense of entitlement, it’s important to recognize that Social Security benefits are not as secure as many may believe. More than just a moral or political right, Social Security benefits are subject to change by Congress, just like any other federal entitlement program.

Over the years, Congress has adjusted the rules governing eligibility and benefit levels, making the system both more generous and more restrictive at times. For instance, student benefits were significantly reduced in the 1983 Amendments, and in 1954, an amendment to the Social Security Act removed old-age benefits from individuals who were deported under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

One notable case that tested this principle involved Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant who had paid into the Social Security system for 19 years.

The Nestor v. Flemming Case

In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor, affirming the termination of benefits for Ephram Nestor after he was deported for his involvement with the Communist Party. Nestor had been receiving Social Security benefits for several years before his deportation, but under a 1954 amendment to the Social Security Act, individuals deported for reasons such as Communist Party affiliation were no longer eligible for benefits.

Nestor argued that his contributions to Social Security created a contract, and thus Congress could not revoke his benefits without due process. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that Social Security benefits are not a contractual right. The Court’s decision reinforced the principle that Congress has the authority to modify, suspend, or revoke benefits as it sees fit.

Conclusion

While workers do contribute to the Social Security system and may feel entitled to benefits, the reality is that Congress retains the power to change the system at any time. Social Security benefits are not guaranteed in the same way as a contractual right. The Flemming v. Nestor case made it clear that, despite paying into the system, individuals do not have a legally protected right to Social Security benefits once Congress decides to amend the rules.

While workers do contribute to the Social Security system and may feel entitled to benefits, the reality is that Congress retains the power to change the system at any time. Social Security benefits are not guaranteed in the same way as a contractual right. The Flemming v. Nestor case made it clear that, despite paying into the system, individuals do not have a legally protected right to Social Security benefits once Congress decides to amend the rules.