author: Justice Powell Justice White,

text:
    HENDERSON et al. v. UNITED STATES
    No. 84-1744.
    Argued April 1, 1986
    Decided May 19, 1986

      Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and Rehnquist, Stevens, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. White, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ., joined, post, p. 333.

      Denise Anton argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were Alex Reisman and Paul G. Sloan.

      Roger Clegg argued the cause for the United States. On the brief were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Trott, Deputy Solicitor General Frey, Charles A. Rothfeld, and Patty Merkamp Stemler.

   Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3161 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. II), as amended in 1979 and in 1984, commands that a defendant be tried within 70 days of the latest of either the filing of an indictment or information, or the first appearance before a judge or magistrate. Section 3161(h)(1)(F) excludes from this time “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion.” This case requires us to decide the narrow questions whether that exclusion is limited to reasonably necessary delays, and whether it applies to delays occasioned by the filing of posthearing briefs on motions.

I

A jury convicted petitioners of charges arising out of manufacture, possession, and distribution of controlled substances. The evidence at trial showed that in February and April 1980 petitioner Henderson, under the alias “Richard Martin,” placed orders with a scientific supply company in Ohio for chemicals that could be used in the manufacture of illegal drugs. The orders attracted the attention of the Drug Enforcement Agency. Agents obtained a warrant from a United States Magistrate, authorizing installation of an electronic transmitter in one of the chemical containers. Henderson drove from California to Ohio, picked up the second order of chemicals on June 24, and headed west. Agents lost the tracking signal despite their following by both car and plane, only to receive it later in July from petitioner Freedman’s house near Watsonville, California. A search pursuant to warrant on July 17 revealed an illicit drug factory. The last of the codefendants, Peter Bell, was arraigned on September 3, 1980.

The Speedy Trial Act requires that trial begin within 70 days of the latest indictment, information, or appearance — in this case, September 3. 18 U. S. C. § 3161(c)(1). A timely trial would have commenced on November 12, 1980, barring periods of excludable delay. Overlapping filings by petitioners and the Government, however, kept a suppression motion pending from its filing on November 3, 1980, through a hearing on that motion on March 25, 1981. The court deferred decision on the motion pending receipt of posthearing submissions from the parties, the last of which was filed on December 15, 1981. See App. 29-31. The District Court finally denied the motion to suppress on January 19, 1982.

From January 25 to May 10, 1982, both parties filed additional motions before the District Court — on January 25 the Government moved to set the case for trial, and on March 23 petitioners moved to reconsider the motion to suppress. On February 3, the court held a hearing on the Government’s motion and granted a continuance through April 21 to allow defense counsel to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the suppression motion. After a hearing on May 10, the court denied petitioners’ motion to reconsider the motion to suppress, and set a trial date of September 13, 1982. The court also entered an order excluding, for purposes of the Act, the time from May 10 to September 13 based on a provision of the Act that allows such exclusion by the Court to satisfy the “ends of justice.” Id., at 32-33; see 18 U. S. C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

On July 23, 1982, Thornton filed a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act. The other two petitioners subsequently joined this motion. The District Judge held a hearing almost two months later, on September 8, and denied the motion from the bench on that date. He filed a memorandum and order outlining his reasons exactly 30 days later. At that time, the judge also entered an order excluding the time from October 8 to November 1, again based on the “interests of justice.” 3 Record, Doc. Nos. 98-99. Trial commenced on November 1, 1982.

Petitioners appealed their convictions, arguing, inter alia, that the District Court could exclude from their Speedy Trial Act computation only delays that were “reasonably necessary.” 746 F. 2d 619, 622 (CA9 1984). The Court of Appeals held that the statute “excludes delays resulting from pretrial motions without qualification.” Ibid. The court noted that Congress had explicitly provided that the excludability of certain other delays depended on their reasonableness, but had not done so for delays from pretrial motions. Ibid. Judge Ferguson dissented, relying on the Act’s legislative history and the interpretations of other Circuits. Id., at 625-626. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuits. 474 U. S. 900 (1985). We now affirm.

II

The Speedy Trial Act requires that a criminal trial must commence within 70 days of the latest of a defendant’s indictment, information, or appearance, barring periods of ex-cludable delay. United States v. Rojas-Contreras, 474 U. S. 231 (1985); see 18 U. S. C. § 3161(c)(1). Section 3161(h) (1)(F) (subsection (F)) excludes from these 70 days certain delays occasioned by the filing of pretrial motions:

“(h) The following periods of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which an information or an indictment must be filed, or in computing the time within which the trial of any such offense must commence:
“(1) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to—
“(F) delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion” (emphasis added).

A

On its face, subsection (F) excludes “[a]ny period of delay” caused by “any pretrial motion,” “from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing.” The plain terms of the statute appear to exclude all time between the filing of and the hearing on a motion whether that hearing was prompt or not. Moreover, subsection (F) does not require that a period of delay be “reasonable” to be excluded, although Congress clearly knew how to limit an exclusion: in § 3161(h)(7), Congress provided for exclusion of a “reasonable period of delay when the defendant is joined for trial with a codefendant as to whom the time for trial has not run and no motion for severance has been granted.” Apart from this single instance, every other provision in § 3161(h) provides for exclusion of “any period of delay.” The provision excludes, for example, all of the time consumed by an interlocutory appeal, § 3161(h)(1)(E), by a competency examination, § 3161(h)(1)(A), and by the defendant’s unavailability, § 3161(h)(3)(A). As the Court of Appeals concluded: “The difference between (7) and (1) through (6) is a strong indication that exclusion of the periods defined in (l)-(6) was intended to be automatic.” 746 F. 2d, at 622.

The legislative history of the 1979 Amendments to the Act supports this reading of subsection (F). That history shows that Congress was aware of the breadth of the exclusion it was enacting in subsection (F). The Senate Judiciary Committee acknowledged that “if basic standards for prompt consideration of pretrial motions are not developed,” the liberalized 1979 Amendments to subsection (F) “could become a loophole which could undermine the whole Act.” S. Rep. No. 96-212, p. 34 (1979). In its subsequent consideration of subsection (F), the House of Representatives did not qualify the exclusion in any way or limit such potential abuse by statute. Instead the House adopted the Senate’s version “with the intention that potentially excessive and abusive use of this exclusion be precluded by district or circuit guidelines, rules, or procedures relating to motions practice.” H. R. Rep. No. 96-390, p. 10 (1979). Congress clearly envisioned that any limitations should be imposed by circuit or district court rules rather than by the statute itself. Such rules, developed pursuant to § 3166(f), should provide the assurance of a speedy disposition of pretrial motions.

Petitioners largely concede these arguments and advance two other contentions for limiting subsection (F)’s exclusion to time that is “reasonably necessary” for the disposition of pretrial motions. First, they contend that the phrase “other prompt disposition” within subsection (F) implies that a district court may not unreasonably delay a criminal trial by deferring a hearing on a pretrial motion. Two of the Courts of Appeals that have limited the exclusion in subsection (F) to delays that are “reasonably necessary” have relied on this argument. United States v. Janik, 723 F. 2d 537, 543 (CA7 1983); United States v. Cobb, 697 F. 2d 38, 41-42 (CA2 1982). But a reading of subsection (F) in connection with §3161 (h)(l)(J) (subsection (J)), which allows exclusion of up to 30 days while the district court has a motion “under advisement,” i. e., 30 days from the time the court receives all the papers it reasonably expects, undermines this conclusion. The phrase “prompt disposition” was intended to prevent a district court from using subsection (F) to exclude time after a motion is taken under advisement when that time fails to qualify for exclusion under subsection (J).

Subsection (F), written in the disjunctive, excludes time in two situations. The first arises when a pretrial motion requires a hearing: subsection (F) on its face excludes the entire period between the filing of the motion and the conclusion of the hearing. The second situation concerns motions that require no hearing and that result in a “prompt disposition.” There, the promptness requirement was “intended to provide a point at which time will cease to be excluded, where motions are decided on the papers filed without hearing.” S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 34. The “point at which time will cease to be excluded” is identified by subsection (J), which permits an exclusion of 30 days from the time a motion is actually “under advisement” by the court. Without the promptness requirement in subsection (F), a court could exclude time beyond subsection (J)’s 30-day “under advisement” provision simply by designating the additional period as time “from the filing of the motion” through its “disposition” under subsection (F). As the Senate Committee on the Judiciary explained:

“In using the words ‘prompt disposition’, the committee intends to make it clear that, in excluding time between filing and disposition on the papers, the Committee does not intend to permit circumvention of the 30-days, ‘under advisement’ provision contained in Subsection (h)(l)(J). Indeed, if motions are so simple or routine that they do not require a hearing, necessary advisement time should be considerably less than 30 days.” Ibid.

We therefore conclude that for pretrial motions that require a hearing, the phrase “or other prompt disposition” in subsection (F) does not imply that only “reasonably necessary” delays may be excluded between the time of filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing thereon.

Petitioners’ second argument rests on the sentence that immediately follows the extract quoted above: “Nor does the Committee intend that additional time be made eligible for exclusion by postponing the hearing date or other disposition of the motions beyond what is reasonably necessary.” Ibid. (emphasis added). Four Courts of Appeals have relied on this legislative history to support their “reasonably necessary” qualification in subsection (F). United States v. Ray, 768 F. 2d 991, 998 (CA8 1985); United States v. Mitchell, 723 F. 2d 1040, 1047 (CA1 1983); United States v. Novak, 715 F. 2d 810, 819 (CA3 1983), cert. denied sub nom. Ware v. United States, 465 U. S. 1030 (1984); United States v. Cobb, 697 F. 2d 38, 44 (CA2 1982).

Any qualification of subsection (F)’s exclusion based on this sentence, which appears in the paragraph discussing motions decided without a hearing, would be at odds with the plain language of the statute. It also would be contrary to other passages contained in both the House and Senate Reports that specifically concern the “hearings” provision of subsection (F). See supra, at 327-328. We therefore decline to read into subsection (F) a “reasonably necessary” qualification based on this single sentence from the Senate Report. We instead hold that Congress intended subsection (F) to exclude from the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day limitation all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion, whether or not a delay in holding that hearing is “reasonably necessary.”

B

The remaining issue is whether subsection (F) excludes time after a hearing on a motion but before the district court receives all the submissions by counsel it needs to decide that motion. Cf. § 3161(h)(1) (excluding “[a]ny period of delay re-suiting from other proceedings concerning the defendant”). Although the language of subsection (F) is not clear on this point, we are convinced that its structure, as well as reason, requires that such time be excluded.

The provisions of the Act are designed to exclude all time that is consumed in placing the trial court in a position to dispose of a motion. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 9-10. District courts often find it impossible to resolve motions on which hearings have been held until the parties have submitted posthearing briefs or additional factual materials, especially where the motion presents complicated issues. It would not have been sensible for Congress to exclude automatically all the time prior to the hearing on a motion and 30 days after the motion is taken under advisement, but not the time during which the court remains unable to rule because it is awaiting the submission by counsel of additional materials. Moreover, for motions decided solely on the papers, Congress has allowed exclusion of time during which the parties are filing their briefs. 18 U. S. C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(F), (J); see supra, at 328-329. It is consistent with this exclusion to exclude time when the court awaits the briefs and materials needed to resolve a motion on which a hearing has been held — motions that the Senate Judiciary Committee recognized as typically more difficult than motions decided on the papers. See S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 34. We therefore hold that subsection (F) excludes time after a hearing has been held where a district court awaits additional filings from the parties that are needed for proper disposition of the motion.

Ill

We now calculate the number of nonexcludable days before petitioners’ trial. The Act began to run on September 3, 1980, the date of arraignment of codefendant Bell. On October 22, 1980, the District Court entered — with the consent of the parties — a continuance through November 12. The District Court excluded that continuance from the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day limit under § 3161(h)(8)(A) in “the interest of justice.” App. 26-27; see 746 F. 2d, at 623-624. That exclusion is not challenged in this Court.

The motion to suppress was filed during this continuance, on November 3, 1980. App. 27. The hearing on this and subsequent motions was held on March 25, 1981. Id., at 28. This time is automatically excludable under § 3161(h)(1)(F). The court declined to reach a final decision on the suppression motion at that hearing because it needed further information. Id., at 28-29. The court did not receive all filings in connection with the motion until December 15, 1981, when the Government submitted its response to petitioners’ memorandum and request for an evidentiary hearing. Id., at 31. That time is also excludable, plus 30 days for the District Court to take the matter under advisement. We therefore exclude the period from March 25, 1981, through January 14, 1982.

On January 25, 1982, the Government filed a motion to set the case for trial, noticed for February 3. We need not decide whether this time is excludable under subsection (F) as it does not affect the disposition of this case. On February 3, the court continued the case until April 21, to afford defense counsel the opportunity to file a motion to reconsider the suppression ruling. Ibid. The District Court subsequently found that this time was excludable under § 3161(h)(8)(A) as a continuance necessary for the “interests of justice.” Id., at 34. On March 23, petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration. Under subsection (F), an exclusion for this pending motion ran from March 23 until the disposition by hearing on May 10. See App. 33. At that time, the court stated that it would exclude under § 3161(h)(8)(A) the time from May 10 to September 13, the new trial date, because of the difficulty of coordinating the schedules of five defense attorneys. The court entered a similar order on September 13 that extended through the ultimate trial date of November 1, 1982. Neither of those orders is properly before us. As the case stands here, it presents 69 nonexcludable days of delay, and therefore the Speedy Trial Act was not violated.

IV

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Justice White,

with whom Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmun join,

dissenting.

The purpose of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, as amended in 1979 and in 1984, 18 U. S. C. §3161 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. II), is to quantify and make effective the Sixth Amendment right to a a speedy trial. S. Rep. No. 96-212, p. 6 (1979); S. Rep. No. 93-1021, p. 1 (1974). To this end, the Act entitles a criminal defendant to dismissal of the charges pending against him if he is not brought to trial within 70 days of his initial appearance or indictment. 18 U. S. C. §§ 3161(c), 3162. In computing the running of this 70-day period, the Act permits certain periods of time to be excluded. These exclusions are designed to take account of specific and recurring periods of delay which often occur in criminal cases; they are not to be used either to undermine the time limits established by the Act, or to subvert the very purpose the Act was designed to fulfill. Nonetheless, this is precisely the result achieved by the majority’s reasoning, as it allows trial judges indefinitely to delay disposing of pretrial motions. For this reason, I dissent.

As interpreted by the majority, § 3161(h)(1)(F) (subsection (F)) excludes the entire period between the filing of the pretrial motion and the date on which the motion is finally taken under advisement. For motions requiring a hearing, all time is excluded from the date the motion is filed through the conclusion of the hearing. Ante, at 329-330. There is no requirement that the hearing be held promptly, and the reason for the delay is irrelevant. Regardless of whether a hearing is postponed due to a stipulated continuance, the sudden illness of counsel, or the trial judge’s decision to play golf, until the hearing is concluded, the 70-day clock remains at a standstill. Moreover, if at the conclusion of the hearing the trial judge determines that more information would be helpful to his resolution of the motion, or if the prosecutor simply announces his intention to file supplemental papers, the period of excludable delay continues indefinitely until the court receives all of the papers it reasonably expects. Only at that point is the motion considered to be “actually under advisement,” and even then, § 3161(h)(l)(J) (subsection (J)) provides for an additional 30 days before the clock begins running again.

For pretrial motions that do not require a hearing, the majority reads subsection (F) to exclude the entire period of time from the filing of the motion through its “prompt disposition.” Ante, at 329. As construed by the Court, however, the word “prompt” does not refer to the speed at which the trial court is required to handle the motion; instead, it merely serves to designate the “point at which time will cease to be excluded.” Ibid. That is to say, Congress inserted the word “prompt” simply to distinguish the time at which the motion is taken under advisement from the “final” disposition, or resolution, of the pretrial motion by the court, and thus prevent trial courts from avoiding the 30-day limitation imposed by subsection (J) by claiming that the unlimited delay sanctioned by subsection (F) applies until the court finally disposes of (i. e., decides) the pretrial motion. Ante, at 329.

As I see it, the majority has misread both subsection (F) and the Act as a whole. I read subsection (F) to require all pretrial motions, regardless of whether they require a hearing, to be disposed of promptly. There is no reason to believe that Congress did not intend the word “prompt” to mean exactly what it normally means, “performed readily or immediately”; “given without delay or hesitation.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, p. 1816 (1976). Reading the word “prompt” in subsection (F) as a synonym for “quick” rather than as an antonym for the word “final” is a far more logical reading of the statute, and is more in keeping with the overall purpose of the Speedy Trial Act. I also find no merit to the contention that the phrase “other prompt disposition” only applies to pretrial motions to be decided without a hearing. After all, there cannot be an “other prompt disposition” of a motion unless there was a prompt disposition in the first place, and the plain language of subsection (F) shows that Congress intended hearings on pretrial motions to be conducted just as promptly as any other disposition of such motions.

This reading of subsection (F) is consistent with the structure of the Speedy Trial Act taken as a whole. Subsection (F) allows for the exclusion of the period of delay occurring between the making of the pretrial motion and its submission to the trial court for decision. It is this portion of the pretrial proceedings that the Act commands must be “prompt,” and the reason for such a requirement is clear: it forces the parties to submit all necessary papers, and the court to hold any necessary hearings and decide what information it needs, in a timely and orderly manner. As shown above, the use of the word “prompt” in this context does more than simply distinguish this point in time from the time when the motion is finally decided (i. e., the “final” disposition of the motion); instead, it describes the pace at which both the parties and the court are to act in ensuring that the trial judge can rule on the pretrial motion as quickly as possible. The promptness requirement, in other words, expressly is designed to prevent endless and needless delays in the assembly of the relevant material necessary for the trial court to make a reasoned decision on the submitted pretrial motion.

Subsection (F) thus requires prompt submission of material to the court and efficient scheduling of pretrial hearings, and once the court receives all of the papers and arguments it reasonably expects, the motion is considered to be “actually under advisement by the court.” Consistent with the purpose of the Act and the promptness requirement imposed by subsection (F), subsection (J) then gives the trial court no more than 30 days in which to consider the parties’ contentions and finally to decide the motion. The period during which the court has the motion “under advisement” is governed by subsection (J), and contrary to the majority’s holding, ante, at 328-329, its 30-day limitation period has no bearing on the speed with which the motion is submitted to the court for decision.

Construing subsection (F) as mandating the prompt scheduling of hearings and submission of material in order for the trial court to take the matter under advisement is supported not only by the language of the statute and the structure of the Act, but also by the legislative history. In explaining the 1979 Amendments to the Act which established subsection (F) in its present form, the Senate Judiciary Committee noted that this portion of the Act “must be read together with the proposed change in clause (ii) of subsection (h)(8)(B) involving ‘preparation’ for ‘pretrial proceedings’.” S. Rep. No. 96-212, p. 33 (1979). The Committee expressly rejected as “unreasonable” the suggestion that “all time consumed by motions practice, from preparation through their disposition, should be excluded,” finding instead that “in routine cases, preparation time should not be excluded where the questions of law are not novel and the issues of fact simple.” Id., at 33-34. Even in cases involving “novel questions of law or complex facts,” the Committee concluded that only “reasonable preparation time for pretrial motions” would be necessary. Id., at 34. Despite the narrow reading of the legislative history by the majority, therefore, the Senate Committee clearly meant exactly what it said when it declared that it did not intend that “additional time be made eligible for exclusion by postponing the hearing date or other disposition of the motions beyond what is reasonably necessary.” Ibid.

Adhering to both the plain language of the statute and its legislative history, the majority of courts considering this question have held that subsection (F) permits the exclusion of only a reasonable amount of time for the trial court to take a pretrial motion under advisement, and that any other result would defeat the purposes of the Act. See United States v. Ray, 768 F. 2d 991, 997-999 (CA8 1985); United States v. Mitchell, 723 F. 2d 1040, 1046-1047 (CA1 1983); United States v. Janik, 723 F. 2d 537, 543-544 (CA7 1983); United States v. Novak, 715 F. 2d 810, 819-820 (CA3 1983), cert. denied sub nom. Ware v. United States, 465 U. S. 1030 (1984); United States v. Cobb, 697 F. 2d 38, 43-45 (CA2 1982); United States v. Smith, 563 F. Supp. 217, 219-220 (Md. 1983), aff’d, 750 F. 2d 1233 (CA4 1984), cert. denied, 471 U. S. 1057 (1985); United States v. Hawker, 552 F. Supp. 117, 124-125 (Mass. 1982). Similarly, the Judicial Conference of the United States recognizes that “[i]n some circumstances, the duration of this exclusion may be subject to a reasonableness requirement.” Committee on the Administration of the Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Guidelines to the Administration of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, as Amended (Dec. 1979 rev., with amendments through Oct. 1984), 106 F. R. D. 271, 289 (1984). Finally, commentators have also noted the necessity for this construction, finding that without it, there would be no need for trial courts to process motions in a timely fashion, thus undermining the purposes of the Act. See Misner, The 1979 Amendments to the Speedy Trial Act: Death of the Planning Process, 32 Hastings L. J. 635, 654-655 (1981); Note, Speedy Trial: A Constitutional Right in Search of Definition, 61 Geo. L. J. 657, 679, and n. 136 (1973), reprinted in Hearings on S. 754 before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 61, 83, and n. 136 (1973).

I agree with this wealth of statutory, judicial, and scholarly authority, and would hold that the Speedy Trial Act requires a trial court to take all pretrial motions under advisement in a prompt manner, and as a result, that only that period of delay found to be reasonably necessary to such a prompt handling of the motion is properly excludable under subsection (F). By holding that the entire period of delay from the filing of a pretrial motion until that motion is taken under advisement is excludable from the 70-day speedy trial computation, the majority allows this exception to swallow the rule and in so doing, undermines the entire Act. As Judge Ferguson concluded in his dissent below, “[w]hile I sympathize with the majority’s search for a per se rule . . . I cannot agree that the desire for an ‘easy’ rule can justify the abrogation of the major purpose of the Speedy Trial Act — to insure the defendant a speedy trial.” 746 F. 2d 619, 627 (1984). I would reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, and remand for a determination of whether the delay in this case was reasonable.

       The jury convicted all three petitioners of conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and phenyl-2-propanone, see 21 U. S. C. § 846; petitioners Thornton and Freedman of manufacture and possession with intent to distribute of methamphetamine, see § 842(a)(1); and petitioner Henderson of traveling interstate with intent to promote the manufacture and possession of methamphetamine, see 18 U. S. C. § 1952(a)(3).

       Codefendant Bell was severed from petitioners’ trial on November 1, 1982. All defendants who are joined for trial generally fall within the speedy trial computation of the latest codefendant. See 18 U. S. C. § 3161(h)(7). Once Bell was joined with petitioners in the September 3 superseding indictment, their 70-day period was measured with respect to his.

       On November 3, 1980, petitioners filed a motion to suppress evidence. 2 Record, Doc. Nos. 24-26. On November 24, petitioners filed a supplemental memorandum concerning alleged misrepresentations in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. On its own motion, the District Court rescheduled the hearing from November 26, 1980, to January 14,1981, and again to January 28, 1981. A third continuance, at petitioner Freedman’s request, moved the hearing date to February 18, 1981. Meanwhile, on January 13, petitioners filed a motion to reveal the identity of a confidential informant. At the February 18 hearing, petitioners requested and received a continuance to March 2 to reply to the Government’s responses, filed only the day before. The hearing was held instead on March 25 after a 21-day continuance from the court on March 4.

       Petitioners filed the motion on March 23; the Government filed its response on April 14, 1982. 3 Record, Doc. Nos. 74-75.

       Section 3161(h)(8)(A) provides for the exclusion of
      “[a]ny period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”

       Several Courts of Appeals have read into 18 U. S. C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) a requirement that only delays that are “reasonably necessary” may be excluded from the computation of the 70-day period. United States v. Ray, 768 F. 2d 991, 998-999 (CA8 1985); United States v. Mitchell, 723 F. 2d 1040, 1047 (CA1 1983); United States v. Janik, 723 F. 2d 537, 543 (CA7 1983); United States v. Novak, 715 F. 2d 810, 819-820 (CA3 1983), cert. denied sub nom. Ware v. United States, 465 U. S. 1030 (1984); United States v. Cobb, 697 F. 2d 38, 44 (CA2 1982). Other Circuits have held that § 3161(h)(1)(F) excludes without qualification the entire period between the filing of the motion and the conclusion of the hearing. 746 F. 2d 619 (CA9 1984) (case below); United States v. Stafford, 697 F. 2d 1368, 1373 (CA11 1983). Cf. United States v. Horton, 705 F. 2d 1414, 1416 (CA5), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 997 (1983).

       Section 3161(h)(1)(H), which provides for the exclusion of delay from transporting a defendant “from another district, or to and from places of examination or hospitalization,” presumes that any such delay over 10 days is unreasonable.

       The discussion in S. Rep. No. 96-212, p. 34 (1979), see post, at 336-337, concerns time spent preparing pretrial motions. The pertinent language from the Report reads:
      “Although some witnesses contended that all time consumed by motions practice, from preparation through their disposition, should be excluded, the Committee finds that approach unreasonable. This is primarily because, in routine cases, preparation time should not be excluded where the questions of law are not novel and the issues of fact simple. However, the Committee would permit through its amendments to subsection (h)(8)(B) reasonable preparation time for pretrial motions in eases presenting novel questions of law or complex facts.” S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 33-34.
      Our holding concerns time after the submission of pretrial motions. We note in such situations that the trial court is in a position to determine what, if any, additional submissions that it needs from the parties, and when those submissions are due.

       The dissent relies on district court rules as a basis for invoking petitioners’ standard. Post, at 337-338, n. 2. The interpretation of the local rule, however, is a matter on which we should defer to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It found no violation of the rule.
      It would be useful in the future for circuit and district court rules to include specific timetables, thereby giving substance to the obligations of prosecutors and defense counsel under the Speedy Trial Act.

       The unexplained failure of the District Court to find the delay from any continuance to be excludable until October 1982 has not been argued by either party before this Court, and therefore is also not before us.

       The count is 49 days from September 3, 1980, to November 22, 1980, and 20 days from January 14, 1982, to February 3, 1982.

       Title 18 U. S. C. § 3161(h)(8)(B) governs the factors a judge is to consider in determining whether to grant an “ends of justice” continuance authorized by § 3161(h)(8)(A). Subsection (h)(8)(B)(ii) provides:
      ‘Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section.”
      The majority characterizes this subsection as dealing only with “time spent preparing pretrial motions’’ Ante, at 327, n. 8 (emphasis in original). This description ignores the plain language of the subsection, which states that it applies to “preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself.” Furthermore, the majority’s statement that its “holding concerns time after the submission of pretrial motions” shows how far removed from the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act its opinion lies. By treating the interval between the time when pretrial motions are submitted to the court and the time when the court takes the motion “under advisement” as a time not governed either by the promptness requirement of subsection (F) or the 30-day limitation imposed by subsection (J), the Court carves out a period in which the 70-day limit imposed by the Act does not apply. This construction permits potentially excessive and abusive use of the Act’s exclusions, and results in the denial of a speedy trial to a criminal defendant — the precise result which the Act was designed to avoid.

       The majority is correct that Congress placed a great deal of reliance on the development of local guidelines relating to motions practice to establish the specific periods of allowable delay under subsection (F). Ante, at 328. I disagree, however, that Congress left this potentially unlimited period of time to be governed solely by such rules. Although Congress might have intended for the district courts and circuits to quantify the precise limits acceptable under this portion of the Act, Congress made sure that, even without the development of such standards, no more time than what is “reasonably necessary” for the prompt submission of the motion to the trial court for decision would be excluded from the running of the 70-day clock established by the Act.
      Moreover, even if the majority is correct that “Congress clearly envisioned that any limitations should be imposed by circuit or district court rules rather than by the statute itself,” ante, at 328, the majority fails to consider the applicable local rules relevant to this case. These provide that “[a]ll pre-trial hearings shall be conducted as soon after the arraignment as possible, consistent with the priorities of other matters on the court’s criminal docket.” U. S. District Court, Northern District of California, Plan for Prompt Disposition of Criminal Cases, Sec. II(4)(F)(4) (revised, Apr. 7, 1980), California Rules of Court 822-824 (West 1986). Although this rule does not offer any specific guidance, it is sufficient to invoke the “reasonably necessary” standard intended by Congress.
      Finally, the majority states that it is deferring to the Ninth Circuit’s determination that the local rules were not violated in this ease. Ante, at 328, n. 9. This finding is not supported by the record, for although the lower court cited to the local rules, 746 F. 2d 619, 623 (1984), there is no indication that the panel ever applied the rules to the facts of this case, let alone that it found that the rules had not been violated.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Powell Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun,

license: Public Domain

text:
    BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. OWENS et al.
    No. 84-1905.
    Argued February 26, 1986
    Decided May 19, 1986
    Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Rehnquist, Stevens, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan, J., joined, post, p. 350. Blackmun, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 354.

      Deputy Solicitor General Kuhl argued the cause for appellant. With her on’the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Willard, Deputy Solicitor General Geller, Edwin S. Kneedler, and William Kanter.

      Gill Deford argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Neal S. Dudovitz, Peter Komlos-Hrobsky, Sally Hart Wilson, and Eileen P. Sweeney.

   Justice Powell

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Certain provisions of the Social Security Act in effect between 1979 and 1983 authorized payment of survivor’s benefits from a wage earner’s account to a widowed spouse who remarried after age 60, but not to a similarly situated divorced widowed spouse. The question in this case is whether those provisions violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

I

The Social Security Act (Act) originally provided only primary benefits to qualified wage earners. Congress later provided secondary benefits to wives, widows, dependent children, and surviving parents of the wage earner. At that time, widows and other secondary beneficiaries would lose their entitlement to survivor’s benefits upon a subsequent marriage. In 1950, Congress extended secondary benefits to dependent husbands and widowers, subject to the same restriction. In 1958, Congress created an exception to this remarriage rule so that if a widow or widower married an individual who received benefits under the Act, neither would forfeit survivor’s benefits.

Until 1965, divorced wives, including those who had outlived their former spouse (divorced widows), were not eligible for the same benefits provided to wives and widows. In that year, Congress amended § 202(b) of the Act to extend wife’s benefits to a divorced wife and survivor’s benefits to a divorced widow if the recipient had been married to her former husband for at least 20 years, and had received more than one-half of her support from him or an agreement or court order required him to make substantial contributions to her support. Pub. L. 89-97, § 308(a), 79 Stat. 375-376. Divorced wives and divorced widows were also subject to the same remarriage rule that had been applied to widows and widowers. In these amendments, however, Congress changed the remarriage rule as it applied to widows and widowers. The new rule provided that if a widow or widower over age 60 married someone who was not entitled to receive certain benefits under the Act, she or he would not completely forfeit survivor’s benefits. Instead, the benefits were reduced to half of the primary wage earner’s benefits. §§ 333(a)(1) and (b)(1), 79 Stat. 403, 404.

In 1977, Congress again relaxed the remarriage provision for widows and widowers, allowing them to receive unreduced survivor’s benefits if they remarried after age 60. The effective date of that amendment was 1979. Pub. L. 95-216, §§ 336(a)(3), (b)(3), (c)(1), 91 Stat. 1547. But Congress retained until 1983 the provision that generally barred a divorced wife or divorced widow from receiving benefits upon remarriage. See §§ 202(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), §§ 202(e)(1)(A), (e)(1)(F). The present case involves this temporary disparity in benefits received upon remarriage.

As a result of a pair of District Court sex discrimination opinions that invalidated portions of the Act, Ambrose v. Califano, CCH Unempl. Ins. Rep. ¶ 17,702 (Ore. 1980); Oli ver v. Califano, CCH Unempl. Ins. Rep. ¶ 15,244 (ND Cal. 1977), the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) promulgated regulations providing that divorced husbands and divorced widowers would receive husband’s benefits and survivor’s benefits to the same extent as divorced wives and divorced widows received wife’s benefits and survivor’s benefits. 44 Fed. Reg. 34480, 34483-34484 (1979); see 20 CFR §§404.331, 404.336 (1985). In 1983 Congress amended the Act to incorporate these regulatory changes. Pub. L. 98-21, § 301(b)(1), 97 Stat. 111. In the same bill, Congress provided that divorced widowed spouses who remarry after age 60 are eligible to receive survivor’s benefits in the same manner as widows and widowers.

II

Appellee Buenta Owens married Russell Judd in 1937 and was divorced from him in 1968. In 1978, when she was 61, she married appellee Kenneth Owens. Judd died on June 19,1982. On July 30,1982, Owens applied for widow’s benefits on Judd’s earnings account as a divorced widow. Her claim was denied on August 27,1982, because she had remarried. She sought administrative reconsideration, contending that the statutory provision denying benefits because of her remarriage was unconstitutional. Her claim again was denied. Subsequently, Owens and the Secretary entered into an agreement stipulating that the only disputed issue was the constitutionality of the provisions of the Act that at that time denied widow’s benefits to divorced widows who remarried. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 402(e)(1)(A), (e)(4). The parties also stipulated that, but for the relevant provisions, Owens’ right to the benefits had been established. Based on that agreement, the parties waived any further administrative review. On April 19, 1983, Owens filed this action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and sought to represent a nationwide class of divorced widowed spouses.

On December 23, 1983, the District Court rejected Owens’ constitutional challenge. Applying the rational-basis standard of review, the court reasoned that Congress was justified in taking one step at a time in extending benefits to spouses who had remarried. While Owens’ motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 was pending, the 1983 amendments to the Act went into effect, so that all otherwise eligible members of the class became entitled to receive monthly survivor’s benefits beginning in January 1984. Subsequently, the court certified a nationwide plaintiffs’ class, consisting of all divorced widowed spouses who remarried after age 60 and who were denied benefits between December 1978 and January 1984.

On October 5, 1984, the District Court reversed its prior ruling on the merits and held the challenged provisions unconstitutional. The court agreed with the Secretary that Congress rationally could assume that widowed spouses are generally more dependent on income from the deceased wage earner than are divorced widowed spouses. It reasoned, however, that because Congress in 1977 had chosen to treat surviving divorced spouses and widowed spouses in the same manner upon the death of the wage earner, there was no logical basis for distinguishing between the two classes of individuals upon their subsequent remarriage. The Secretary appealed directly to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1252. We noted probable jurisdiction, Heckler v. Owens, 474 U. S. 1046 (1985). We now reverse.

Ill

Congress faces an unusually difficult task in providing for the distribution of benefits under the Act. The program is a massive one, and requires Congress to make many distinctions among classes of beneficiaries while making allocations from a finite fund. In that context, our review is deferential. “Governmental decisions to spend money to improve the general public welfare in one way and not another are ‘not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment.’” Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U. S. 181, 185 (1976), quoting Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619, 640 (1937). As this Court explained in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 611 (1960):

“Particularly when we deal with a withholding of a non-contractual benefit under a social welfare program such as [Social Security], we must recognize that the Due Process Clause can be thought to interpose a bar only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification.”

When the challenged classification in this case is examined in the light of these principles, it cannot be said that the distinctions Congress made were arbitrary or irrational.

A

We have previously noted that “[t]he entitlement of any secondary beneficiary is predicated on his or her relationship to a contributing wage earner.” Califano v. Jobst, 434 U. S. 47, 52 (1977). In determining who is eligible for such benefits, the scope of the program does not allow for “individualized proof on a case-by-case basis.” Ibid. Congress “has elected to use simple criteria, such as age and marital status, to determine probable dependency.” Ibid. In particular, Congress has used marital status as a general guide to dependency on the wage earner: “The idea that marriage changes dependency is expressed throughout the Social Security Act.” Id., at 52, n. 8. One example of this assumption is Congress’ original decision to terminate the benefits of all secondary beneficiaries, including widowed spouses, who remarried. When Congress subsequently made divorced widowed spouses eligible for survivor’s benefits, it also imposed on them the rule that remarriage terminated benefits. This remarriage rule was based on the assumption that remarriage altered the status of dependency on the wage earner. This Court upheld the validity of that general assumption in Jobst. Id., at 53.

Congress was not constitutionally obligated to continue to extend benefits to any remarried secondary beneficiary. It nevertheless chose to do so, but in gradual steps. In 1965, Congress provided that if a widow or widower remarried after age 60, she or he would receive reduced benefits. In 1977, Congress provided that if a widow or widower remarried after age 60, she or he would continue to receive full survivor’s benefits. Finally, in 1983, Congress amended the Act to provide that divorced widowed spouses who remarry after age 60 may receive survivor’s benefits in the same manner as widows and widowers. Appellees complain that Congress’ failure in 1977 to extend benefits to divorced widowed spouses who had remarried was irrational.

This Court consistently has recognized that in addressing complex problems a legislature “may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.” Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489 (1955). That is precisely what Congress has done in this case. When Congress decided to create some exceptions to the remarriage rule, it was not required to take an all-or-nothing approach. Instead, it chose to proceed more cautiously. It had valid reasons for doing so.

The House version of the 1977 bill contained a complete elimination of the general rule terminating benefits upon a subsequent marriage. H. R. Rep. No. 95-702, pt. 1, pp. 47-48 (1977). The House version would have created in the first year of operation alone 670,000 more beneficiaries than under the pre-1977 system, costing $1.3 billion in additional benefits each year. Ibid,. Faced with these concerns, Congress reasonably could decide to “concentrate limited funds where the need [was] likely to be greatest.” Califano v. Boles, 443 U. S. 282, 296 (1979). It chose only to create an exception for widows and widowers, who presumably were more likely to depend on their spouses for financial support than were divorced widows and widowers. While it may have been feasible to have extended benefits to divorced widowed spouses in 1979 rather than 1983, Congress was not constitutionally obligated to do so.

Congress’ adjustments of this complex system of entitlements necessarily create distinctions among categories of beneficiaries, a result that could be avoided only by making sweeping changes in the Act instead of incremental ones. A constitutional rule that would invalidate Congress’ attempts to proceed cautiously in awarding increased benefits might deter Congress from making any increases at all. The Due Process Clause does not impose any such “‘constitutional straitjacket.’” De Castro, 429 U. S., at 185, quoting Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 546 (1972). As we recognized in Jobst:

“Congress could reasonably take one firm step toward the goal of eliminating the hardship caused by the general marriage rule without accomplishing its entire objective in the same piece of legislation. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483, 489. Even if it might have been wiser to take a larger step, the step Congress did take was in the right direction and had no adverse impact on persons like the Jobsts.” 434 U. S., at 57-58.

Congress drew a reasonable line in a process that soon increased benefits to all relevant beneficiaries.

B

The District Court correctly reasoned that under De Castro and Boles, it was rational for Congress to assume that divorced widowed spouses are generally less dependent upon the resources of their former spouses than are widows and widowers. It held, however, that because Congress had chosen to treat widowed spouses and divorced widowed spouses identically upon the death of the wage earner, there was no rational basis for distinguishing between them if they remarried. The logic of the District Court’s position depends on a showing that Congress did not distinguish between divorced widowed spouses and widowed spouses prior to remarriage. Apparently the District Court inferred that because both divorced widowed spouses and widowed spouses were entitled to survivor’s benefits, Congress viewed the groups as equally dependent on the wage earner. Such an inference is belied by the history and provisions of the Act.

When Congress first began to make divorced wives eligible for wives’ benefits in 1965, it focused on that group of divorced wives whose marriages ended after many years, when they might be “too old to build up a substantial social security earnings record even if [they] can find a job.” H. R. Rep. No. 213, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 107-108 (1965). To that end, divorced wives were eligible for wife’s benefits only if they had been married to the wage earner for 20 years and received substantial support from him. It was not until 1972 that Congress dropped the requirement of showing support from the wage earner. Even then, Congress retained the 20-year marriage requirement.

Congress has made the same distinctions in its treatment of divorced widowed spouses. When they first became eligible for survivor’s benefits in 1965, it was under the same basic eligibility rules that applied to divorced spouses. During the relevant time of this lawsuit, divorced spouses and divorced widowed spouses had to have been married to the wage earner for at least 10 years to receive benefits. That precondition did not have to be met by spouses or widows.

These eligibility requirements demonstrate that Congress adhered to the general assumption, approved in De Castro, that divorce normally reduces dependency on the wage earner. The fact that Congress awards benefits to divorced widowed spouses once the eligibility requirements are met does not necessarily mean that their dependency is equivalent to that of widows or widowers. Congress may view the 10-year-marriage requirement as a lesser showing of dependency, but still sufficient to justify extension of benefits. Presumably Congress concluded that remarriage sufficiently reduced that lesser dependency to the point where it could conclude that benefits no longer were appropriate. These views would be consistent with the position Congress has taken throughout the history of the Act that divorced spouses are less dependent on the wage earner than spouses. Because divorced widowed spouses did not enter into marriage with the same level of dependency on the wage earner’s account as widows or widowers, it was rational for Congress to treat these groups differently after remarriage.

IV

The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan joins,

dissenting.

The Court demonstrates an enviable ability to discern rationality where there is none. But the majority’s efforts to imagine plausible legislative scenarios cannot obscure the simple truth: there is absolutely no evidence that Congress had any rational basis for deciding in 1977 that surviving divorced spouses who remarried could not receive the same survivor’s benefits allowed to remarried widowed spouses. Because I believe that such a distinction between two groups treated similarly in other respects cannot survive the scrutiny required by the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, I dissent.

I

In 1977, a Report of the House Committee on Ways and Means noted one drawback of the benefits scheme then in force:

“Present law provides, in general, that the marriage (or remarriage) of a worker’s divorced or surviving spouse, parent, or child prevents or terminates entitlement to benefits based on the worker’s social security earnings record. For example, a widow who remarries before age 60 cannot get benefits based on her first husband’s earnings as long as she is married. If she remarries after age 60, the benefits based on the first husband’s social security are reduced or terminated; the widow gets either a wife’s benefit based on her first husband’s earnings (which is less than the widow’s benefit she was getting) or a wife’s benefit based on her current husband’s earnings (if he is a beneficiary), whichever is higher. Benefits are not payable to divorced spouses and young surviving spouses who are remarried.
“Your committee is especially concerned about the effect of these provisions on older surviving spouses (and divorced spouses). Accordingly, your committee has recommended changes in the law which would eliminate marriage or remarriage as a factor affecting entitlement to benefits or benefit amounts. Specifically, under your committee’s bill, marriage or remarriage would not bar or terminate entitlement to benefits as a divorced spouse, surviving spouse . . . , parent, or child, and remarriage would not cause any reduction in aged widow’s or widower’s insurance benefits.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-702, pt. 1, pp. 47-48 (1977).

The Senate version of this bill, however, did not address any of the House Committee’s concerns. And a subsequent Report tersely records the result of discussions between conferees from both Houses on this issue:

“The Senate recedes, with an amendment that would retain only that part of the House-passed provisions that would prevent reduction in benefits for widows and widowers who remarry after age 60.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-837, p. 73 (1977).

The compromise thus produced the Social Security provisions in effect between 1979 and 1983 that are the subject of this suit. Those provisions authorized payment of survivor’s benefits to widowed spouses who remarried after age 60, but not to similarly situated divorced widowed spouses.

II

As a historical matter, I suspect that the Court is right to characterize the distinction drawn by the 1977 Act between widowed spouses and surviving divorced spouses as the product of Congress’ decision to “take one step at a time,” ante, at 347, toward a program that would reflect “the needs of today’s society,” H. R. Rep. No. 95-702, pt. 1, supra, at 4. However, under the Due Process Clause, even legislative classifications that result from compromise must bear at least a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. Had Congress accommodated the House’s reform goals with the Senate’s more conservative outlook in this area by passing a law giving benefits to only those remarried widowed spouses who had been born on odd-numbered days of the calendar, we would surely have to strike the provision down as irrational. The question here is thus whether Congress had any rational basis for taking the particular step that it chose to take in 1977.

Recognizing that it is not enough to label the 1977 provisions a way station on the road to a sensible destination, the Court argues that the statutory distinction between surviving divorced spouses and widowed spouses was based upon a legislative judgment that widowed spouses were the more dependent of the two groups. The problem with the majority’s rationalization is that Congress never expressed it, or even hinted at it. The relevant legislative history contains absolutely no evidence to support the assumption that a divorced survivor is any less dependent than a widowed survivor, or to indicate that in 1977 Congress was at all motivated by that assumption.

The majority attempts to-fill the gap by assuming that Congress must have perceived a distinction between divorced spouses and widowed spouses because it required that the former, but not the latter, be married to the wage earner for 10 years in order to receive benefits. That distinction can perhaps be taken as evidence that Congress believed that a divorced spouse who had been married to the wage earner for less than 10 years was not sufficiently dependent on the wage earner’s income to justify the extension of benefits. Yet it can hardly be taken as an indication that surviving divorced spouses who did satisfy the 10-year requirement were thought any less dependent than widowed spouses. Divorced spouses meeting that requirement were not treated differently from widowed spouses for any purpose other than the remarriage provisions, and there is no indication in the statute or legislative history that Congress ever attempted to articulate a difference between the two groups justifying different treatment.

“When a legislative purpose can be suggested only by the ingenuity of a government lawyer litigating the constitutionality of a statute, a reviewing court may be presented not so much with a legislative policy choice as its absence.” Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U. S. 221, 244 (1981) (Powell, J., dissenting); see United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166, 184 (1980) (Brennan, J., dissenting). While the absence of a clear statement of purposes need not doom a statute under rationality review, our task must always be to determine whether a particular rational purpose actually motivated the Legislature. See Fritz, supra, at 188 (Brennan, J., dissenting). We have no indication in this case that Congress had any basis for drawing this line other than its desire to find a point of compromise between the two Houses. With the help of the Government’s lawyers, the Court has tried hard to come up with a hypothetical justification for Congress’ action. I do not think that is our job. I dissent.

Justice Blackmun,

dissenting.

I agree with Justice Marshall that the Court has failed to identify a rational basis for Congress’ decision to treat widowed spouses and surviving divorced spouses differently upon their remarriage. If anything, persons in these two categories are more similarly situated after remarriage than they were before, since they all then belong to family units unconnected to the primary wage earner whose eárnings provide the basis for their secondary social security benefits. Cf. Califano v. Jobst, 434 U. S. 47, 53 (1977) (“marriage is an event which normally marks an important change in economic status” and “not only creates a new family . . . but also modifies . . . pre-existing relationships”).

       In 1972, Congress eliminated the requirement that a divorced wife or divorced widow show a specified level of support from her former husband, but retained the 20-years-of-marriage requirement. Pub. L. 92-603, §§ 114(a), (b), 86 Stat. 1348.

       Congress also reduced the 20-years-of-marriage requirement for divorced wives and divorced widows to 10 years.

       Appellee Kenneth Owens had been married to Dorothy L. Owens for over 34 years when they were divorced in 1978. In that same year he married Buenta Owens. He was 60 years old. In 1982 he applied for survivor’s benefits based on the earnings account of his former wife, who had died. His claim was denied at the initial stage and again in a reconsideration decision in 1983. He and the Secretary also reached an agreement to waive any further administrative review. Kenneth Owens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, challenging the constitutionality of the statutory provisions with an argument virtually identical to his wife’s. When he filed his lawsuit, the District Court already had ruled in favor of the Secretary in Buenta Owens’ suit, and her motion for reconsideration was pending. The court consolidated Kenneth Owens' suit with that of his wife. Kenneth Owens died during the pendency of this suit before this Court. Buenta Owens moved to be substituted for him as an appellee in this case, a motion we granted on February 24, 1985. Because appellees raise identical arguments, the discussion of Kenneth Owens’ case is subsumed in the discussion of Buenta Owens’ case.

       The Secretary disputes the propriety of the class certification and in particular the District Court’s conclusion that the waiver of further administrative review as to the named appellees had the effect of waiving exhaustion requirements as to all the members of the class. Because we reject the equal protection claim, we do not reach the class certification issue.

       In 1958, Congress amended this strict remarriage rule to provide that benefits would not be terminated if a widow or widower married a person who was also entitled to benefits under the Act. Pub. L. 85-840, §§ 307(b), (e), 72 Stat. 1031.

       In addition to widowed spouses and divorced widowed spouses, the expanded class of beneficiaries would have included surviving parents and surviving children.

       The contemporaneous legislative history does not reveal what portion of that figure would have been attributable to divorced widowed spouses. A budgetary report on the 1983 amendments that eliminated the distinction between widowed spouses and divorced widowed spouses estimated the cost of that amendment as less than $50 million a year. Congress in 1977 was not required to separate out the $1.3 billion cost figure by subcategories. It was free to continue to extend benefits following marriage only to that group of secondary beneficiaries most closely tied to the wage earner, consistent with the general purposes of the Act. That $50 million annual cost is sufficient to justify fiscal concern.