U.S. Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz
- Railroad Retirement Act restricted future accruals for windfall benefits by retired railroad workers.
- Grandfather provision retained benefits for some classes of individuals.
- This created lots of seemingly unfair issues with who got benefits.
- Appellee denied full windfall benefits.
- SD Indiana held the RRA unconstitutional.
- What standard of review should be applied to the RRA's provisions?
- Rational basis applied.
- Congress could properly conclude that persons who had actually acquired statutory entitlement to windfalls while still employed had a greater equitable claim than the members of appellee's class, who were no longer in railroad employment when they became eligible.
- The "current connection" test is not a patently arbitrary means for determining which employees are "career railroaders" and the test has been used by Congress elsewhere.
- Where, as here, there are plausible reasons for Congress's action, our inquiry is at an end.
- The Court fails to scrutinize the challenged classification in a manner established by our governing precedents.
- The mode f analysis used basically immunizes social and economic legislative classifications from judicial review.
- Rationalization is the product of gov't attorneys, and was not adopted by Congress. The actual purpose should be the basis for analysis.
- Rational basis is not a conceivable basis.