Detecting Overpayments Due To Marriage

     From Impact of Undetected Marriages on Social Security Administration Payments, a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

... Marriage can impact a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) beneficiary’s payment. We randomly selected 1 of 20 segments from the Supplemental Security Record (SSR) and Master Beneficiary Record (MBR). We identified 3 populations with name changes and sampled 250 individuals ...

SSA did not always take the necessary manual actions to properly update 38 of the 250 payment records for SSI recipients or OASDI beneficiaries when there was a name change because of marriage. Furthermore, SSA had not taken manual action on 11 SSI recipients or OASDI beneficiaries who changed their name via the iSSNRC application. We estimate SSA improperly paid 16,631 SSI recipients and OASDI beneficiaries approximately $240.9 million when there was a name change because of marriage. ...

When a person changes their name, SSA systems do not automatically determine whether they are receiving benefits. SSA does not know about a marriage until an individual reports it. ...

SSA explored the feasibility of using electronic marriage data to determine if OASDI beneficiaries changed their marital status. However, not all states/jurisdictions have a central repository of electronic marriage data, and many do not require, or collect, the marriage applicants’ Social Security number. ...

    There's a lot that Social Security could do to prevent overpayments if it had an adequate workforce. A different Inspector General might want to issue a report detailing how much money is being wasted due to inadequate staffing at the Social Security Administration.

    By the way, there's also the question of whether marriage should have as many effects as it does on Social Security and SSI benefits but that's another topic.

Nice Try But I'm Not Buying It

    Nancy Altman, the President of Social Security Works and a past candidate for nomination to become Commissioner of Social Security, has written a piece for Common Dreams arguing for an end to the marriage penalty which terminates Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits for recipients who marry. I've been arguing for decades that the DAC marriage penalty is indefensible and should be abolished. Altman is arguing that President Biden should just order an end to the DAC marriage penalty because of the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which prohibits application of any federal law that substantially burdens religious freedom. The argument is that one's religion may demand marriage therefore making application of the marriage penalty illegal. Altman says that the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund is trying to convince Social Security to adopt this view.

    My opinion is that this is a strained interpretation of the law that is unlikely to get anywhere. If nothing else, remember that marriage is both a civil and a religious institution but you can have one without the other. Many people choose civil ceremonies but it's possible to have the opposite, a religious wedding without obtaining a marriage license which leaves you without the legal rights and penalties that go along with marriage but with religious sanction for your marriage.

Of All The Crazy Things In The Social Security Act, The Marriage Penalty For DAC Recipients May Be The Most Cruel

    From the New York Times:

Lori Long and Mark Contreras met on Match.com in November 2015. ...

Within weeks of [their first] date, both knew they had found their forever partner. But three months after Mr. Contreras proposed in his Salinas, Calif., home in December 2016 and Ms. Long said an ecstatic “yes,” Ms. Long sat him down for a talk. “I told him, ‘Mark, we’re not going to be able to pursue a life together,’” she said.

She still wanted to marry him, but not if it meant giving up the health care benefits that she relies on to live.

Ms. Long is caught in a governmental quagmire. She was diagnosed at 15 with ankylosing spondylitis, a condition that causes bone fractures and sometimes requires her to use a wheelchair. ...

Because she qualifies for Social Security benefits through a program for adults whose medical disability started before age 22, she is considered a “disabled adult child.” The designation, known as D.A.C., applies to 1.1 million Americans, according to the Social Security Administration website.

Those who qualify generally cannot continue to receive benefits if they marry someone who is not disabled or retired. ...

Ms. Long is among a nationwide network of people pushing for change in Social Security laws as they pertain to marriage. They include not just D.A.C. recipients like her, but also a larger group of disabled Americans — roughly four million — who get S.S.I., or Supplemental Security Income. ...

 

$90,000 Backpay For Widower

      From Business Insider Personal Finance:

Anthony Gonzales and Mark Johnson were married at the Bernalillo County Clerk's Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico, alongside more than 100 other LGBTQ+ couples, on August 27, 2013. 

Same-sex marriage was legalized statewide in New Mexico in December 2013 — and was legalized nationwide on June 26, 2015 by the Supreme Court — however, some local county clerks in New Mexico began issuing marriage licenses to LGBTQ+ couples as early as August 2013, arguing that New Mexico's definition of marriage made no mention of sex or gender. … 

Johnson died on February 19, 2014, six months after he legally married Gonzales at the county clerk's office. … 

When he turned 60 in 2015, one year after Mark's death, Gonzales was let go from his job. He applied for survivor benefits, Social Security benefits that widows and widowers get when their spouse dies. … 

Gonzales was denied survivor benefits three weeks after he sent his application. He says, "I got a letter saying, 'Sorry, but you weren't married the required nine months.' And I was like, 'Well, how could we fulfill that requirement when we could not get married?" … 

In May 2021, the US District Court of Arizona ruled in favor of … same-sex couples who had been denied survivor benefits. According to records reviewed by Insider, Gonzales started receiving $1,700 a month in survivor benefits starting May 2021, along with $90,000 in backpay for the years he was denied benefits. …

SSA To Allow Self-Selection Of Sex

      From a press release:

Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, announced that the agency will offer people the choice to self-select their sex on their Social Security number (SSN) record. The agency anticipates this option will be available in the fall of 2022. ...

People who update their sex marker in Social Security’s records will need to apply for a replacement SSN card. They will still need to show a current document to prove their identity, but they will no longer need to provide medical or legal documentation of their sex designation once the policy change becomes effective. SSN cards do not include sex markers. ...

    This appears to be part of a larger Biden Administration effort to ease the lives of transgender Americans.

    Why should Social Security even bother to collect gender information? Prohibitions on same sex marriage used to affect benefits payments but that was external to Social Security and those prohibitions are now gone. Social Security benefit payments themselves have been gender neutral for many decades.

EMs Allowing Benefits For Those Who Had Been Unable To Marry Due To Unconstitutional State Laws

      Social Security had earlier announced that it was settling two class actions concerning those who had been denied benefits due to the nine month duration of marriage requirement for widows/widowers benefits in the setting of couples who had been unable to marry due to state laws, later found unconstitutional, prohibiting same sex marriages. Now, the agency has issued two Emergency Messages (EMs) showing how it will implement the new policies.

     The Thornton v. Commissioner EM and the Ely v. Saul EM tell agency adjudicators to consider these questions in determining whether there was an intent to marry that was thwarted by unconstitutional state laws:

· Would the claimant have married their partner if not for a State law that prohibited same-sex marriage? 

· What date would the couple have married if they were not prohibited from doing so? 

· Did the law of the State where the couple lived permit same-sex marriages before the NH died? For information about when States and U.S. territories permitted same-sex marriages, refer to GN 00210.003. 

· Did the couple have a commitment ceremony or attempt to have the relationship formally recognized in any other way prior to the NH’s death? 

· Did the couple exchange commitment rings? 

· Was the claimant in a committed relationship with the NH? If so, for how long?

· Did the couple live together? If yes, how long did they live together?  

· Did they own property together?

· Did the claimant inherit from the NH based on a will?

· Did the NH name the claimant as a beneficiary for life insurance or retirement benefits?

· Did the couple have children together or did they raise any children together from prior relationships?

· Did the claimant and the NH share joint responsibility to care for one another?· Would the claimant and the NH have been otherwise eligible to marry if the law had not barred same-sex couples from marriage? Consider the following questions when determining whether the parties were eligible to marry:

· Were the claimant and NH related to each other in a way that would prevent them from marrying?
· Were the claimant and NH both over the age of 18 during their relationship (or, if not, over the relevant age of majority to marry)?
· Were the claimant and NH prevented from marrying each other because one of them was married to someone else?

· Did the couple choose not to marry prior to the NH’s death for reasons other than a State law prohibition on same-sex marriages?

· Is there any other available evidence regarding whether the couple would have married, and what date they would have married, if State law did not prohibit same-sex marriages?

Class Actions On Same Sex Marriages Settled

      From NBC News:

Social Security survivors benefits will now be available to same-sex spouses and partners who had been denied access due to previous bans on gay marriage.

The Department of Justice and the Social Security Administration on Monday announced that they dismissed appeals filed by the then-Trump administration in two class-action lawsuits related to Social Security survivors benefits for same-sex partners and spouses.

In 2018, Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ rights nonprofit group, filed two class-action lawsuits against the Social Security Administration: one on behalf of surviving same-sex partners who had been prevented from legally marrying their loved ones by bans on same-sex marriage, and another on behalf of those who were able to marry, but were prevented from being married for at least nine months — the minimum set by the Social Security Administration — due to bans on same-sex marriage. …

Abolish The Marriage Penalties

      Should marriage be discouraged? There may be a few who have had sad experiences with marriage who would answer that question “yes” but I think that most would say, to the contrary, that marriage should be encouraged. So, why does Social Security have provisions that punish people for getting married? Why do I as an attorney who represents Social Security clients have to warn people about the negative consequences of marriage? Social Security may not be the sole reason but disabled people are much less likely to marry than healthy people. That’s not a good thing for the disabled people or society in general.

     Here are those punitive provisions:

• In most cases people drawing disabled adult child benefits lose all benefits if they marry.
• Two disabled people drawing SSI get less money as a married couple than if they just “live in sin.”
• A disabled person drawing SSI can continue to receive SSI if they “live in sin” with a person who is working full time but loses benefits if they get married.

Will It Hold Up On Appeal?

      From The Advocate:

A federal court ruled Friday that the Social Security Administration’s blanket denial of Social Security survivor’s benefits to same-sex spouses who were prevented from marrying is unconstitutional.

The ruling came in the case of Helen Thornton, a resident of Washington State who sought to claim survivor’s benefits based on her 27-year relationship with Marge Brown, who died in 2006, six years before same-sex couples in the state had the right to marry. Brown had a more extensive work record than Thornton, who supplements her own modest Social Security income by taking care of animals, notes a press release from Lambda Legal, which represented Thornton along with attorneys from the firm of Nossaman LLP.

Thornton applied for the benefits in 2015, shortly before she would have been eligible to receive them at age 60. But the SSA turned her down because she and Brown had not been legally married, even though state law prevented them from marrying. She filed suit in 2018 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

On Friday, a judge in that court, James L. Robart, ruled that denial of the benefits violated the U.S. Constitution. He also certified the case as a national class action, meaning others who have sought the benefits and been denied simply because they were unable to marry their partner will have an avenue to claim them. ...

Biden Plan For Social Security Disability

      From Joe Biden's plan for people with disabilities:

PROTECT AND STRENGTHEN ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

The Trump Administration has systematically attacked the Social Security disability programs—from proposing monitoring people with disabilities through social media in order to cancel their benefits, including their health care, to tightening eligibility through a proposal to  redefine the number of hours in a work week so some applicants do not receive benefits. The National Council on Disability found that “people with disabilities live in poverty at more than twice the rate of people without disabilities.” To protect the economic security of people with disabilities and increase employment opportunities, Biden will take a holistic approach to Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Medicaid, and other programs to support people with disabilities. He will: 

• Increase the benefit level for people receiving SSI. Biden will set a federal benefit rate of at least 100% of the poverty level. 
• Eliminate the five-month waiting period for SSDI and two-year waiting period for Medicare. Biden will work to pass legislation to ensure working people who develop a condition or disability are able to get their Social Security support as well as their Medicare benefits as soon as they qualify. 
• Eliminate the “benefit cliff” for SSDI. Earnings limits under SSDI can discourage people with disabilities from engaging in employment or internship opportunities when they depend on SSDI funds. Biden will increase this limit and phase out this benefit gradually so people with disabilities don’t have to choose between employment and health care. 
• Reform the SSI program so that it doesn’t limit beneficiaries’ freedom to marry, save, or live where they choose. Biden will work with Congress and the disability community to eliminate the SSI marriage penalty and “in-kind support and maintenance” provision and raise the asset limits associated with SSI that have not been increased since 1984. 
• Expand access to tax-advantaged savings accounts, ABLE accounts, which provide people with disabilities a way to pay for “qualified disability-related expenses, such as education, housing and transportation.” Biden will work to pass the ABLE Age Adjustment Act, which will make ABLE accounts available to 6 million additional adults with disabilities, including 1 million veterans. 
• Reverse damage done to Social Security rules by the Trump Administration. President Trump announced that he wants to change the Social Security rules for people who get disability benefits, including SSI and SSDI. His proposed change would require many to re-verify their disability every two years, a tough enough process to get through once, targeting adults with disabilities who are close to retirement, children with disabilities, and people with certain medical conditions including cancer and behavioral disorders. If approved by the Trump Administration, Biden will rescind this harmful proposal.
• Strengthen the Social Security Administration. Ensuring that Social Security benefits are easy to access and that field offices and teleservice centers are fully funded is key to our bedrock commitment to seniors and people with disabilities. Cutting Social Security services will only hurt the most vulnerable in our communities. Biden will provide sufficient resources for staffing needs to meet the needs of beneficiaries today and into the future.

I Wouldn't Bet On This Holding Up

     From the Arizona Capitol Times:

A federal magistrate has voided policies of the Social Security Administration that deny benefits to the survivors of some gay marriages.

In a precedent-setting decision, Bruce Macdonald said it was wrong for the government to conclude that Michael Ely did not meet the legal requirements to be considered the legal survivor of James A. Taylor.

Macdonald acknowledged that the policy requires that couples have been married for at least nine months for the survivor to get benefits. And that was not the case here, as Taylor died within six months of their wedding.

But the judge said that Ely was legally precluded from marrying Taylor in Arizona until October 2014 when a federal judge voided the state’s ban on same-sex nuptials. They wed the following month, with Taylor dying six months later.

And Macdonald said the government cannot use that unconstitutional ban to now penalize Ely. ...

     The Magistrate Judge has issued only a recommended decision that must be reviewed by the actual District Judge, assuming that the parties didn't consent to jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge, which seems unlikely. After the District Judge decides, the case is likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeals and it could go to the Supreme Court after that. I certainly agree that denying benefits in this situation is unfair but I'm doubtful that the Courts will find it unconstitutional. Not everything that is unfair is unconstitutional.

     Update: I am told that the parties did consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. I don’t know why either would have consented in this case. There can be an appeal to the District Court Judge and discretionary review in the Court of Appeals but no appeal of right to the Court of Appeals if the parties consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

About Time

     I was under the impression that Social Security had long since processed all of the claims based upon same sex marriages that had been held up pending policy decisions. It looks like I was wrong. The agency has just released a batch of cases that had been held up. I don't know what issues there might have been in these cases. I suspect that it could not have been many cases or I would have been aware of them. Perhaps this is just housekeeping, telling staff to check to make sure that they don't have any more cases on hold awaiting policy decisions that were made some time ago.

The Marriage Penalty

     From the Columbus Dispatch:

People with developmental or intellectual disabilities often face the prospect of losing a portion of their disability benefits if they marry. Sherri and Bill Adams finally were able to wed this month after a years-long fight, and they’re pushing for a law to help others. ...

But the so-called marriage penalty remains an obstacle for many couples in the United States. The new Mr. and Mrs. Adams, who took their fight to marry public with an online petition drive in 2016, vow to keep pushing for what they and others see as a matter of civil rights.

“Although we found a loophole in our situation, we will not give up,” Bill said. “There are a lot of couples who are still unable to get married, and that is still not right.”

The disability community’s long-running battle for change gained support last year with bipartisan legislation introduced in Congress to protect the federal benefits of people with intellectual or developmental disabilities who wish to marry. If enacted, the Marriage Access for People With Special Abilities Act would keep Supplemental Security Income benefits for an individual from being affected by marital status, and ensure access to Medicaid benefits as long as the person qualifies for SSI. ...

After Sherri went to the Social Security office last year for a new card, she and Bill discovered that they could avoid a devastating reduction in their modest benefits (together they receive less than $2,000 a month) if Sherri received a portion of her disability income as a survivor benefit based on her deceased father’s Social Security.

Not many couples have that option or even know it exists.

Licking County residents Jordan Boring, 36, and Sarah Burkett, 34, had a lovely wedding in December 2018, but the ceremony didn’t culminate in a legal union.

“It’s not fair,” said Margie Goodin, a former site coordinator at the disabilities-services program where the two met. “All they want is to be able to spend every day together.”

Jordan and Sarah, both of whom have Down syndrome, opted for a commitment ceremony to preserve crucial benefits. They also have not been able to get a place together because combining households could jeopardize their benefits, said Sarah’s mother, Patti Burkett. ...

      There are actually two penalties. If both members of a married couple receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), they receive a lower amount than if they are not married. It's worse for Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits on the account of a parent. DAC recipients become completely ineligible for benefits after marriage. However, if both are eligible for DAC they can keep their benefits after marriage. It appears that Mr. and Mrs. Adams are eligible for DAC and, therefore, able to keep their benefits.

More Same Sex Marriage Litigation

     From YubaNet.com:

Lambda Legal today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) on behalf of a 65-year-old gay man seeking spousal survivor’s benefits based on his 43-year relationship with his husband, who died seven months after Arizona began allowing same-sex couples to marry. The lawsuit filed on behalf of Michael Ely in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona argues that SSA’s imposition of a nine-month marriage requirement for social security survivor’s benefits is unconstitutional where same-sex couples were not able to be married for nine months because of discriminatory marriage laws.

More Same Sex Marriage Litigation

     From the NM Political Report:

Anthony Gonzales met his future husband, Mark Johnson, at an Albuquerque gay bar, twenty years ago this month. Soon after, Gonzales and Johnson moved in and began their life together. In 2013, they made their union legally binding when they joined hundreds of other couples on Albuquerque’s Civic Plaza on the first day counties across New Mexico began legally recognizing same sex marriages. Almost six month later, 180 days to be exact, Johnson died of cancer.

Now, just weeks before his wedding anniversary, Gonzales has filed a federal civil suit against the U.S. Government’s Social Security Administration for the monetary benefits he said he is owed. The suit, filed in June, asks for Social Security survivor benefits or money usually paid out to a surviving spouse. But, the Social Security Administration requires couples to be married for nine months before a surviving spouse can collect those specific benefits from their deceased partner. That’s the case for Gonzales and thousands of others, even though the administration grants other exceptions for those who have been able to legally marry for centuries.

     The only other exception is for cases where the death was unexpected which, apparently, wasn't the case here since Mr. Johnson died of cancer.
     I regret that Mr. Gonzalez lost his husband. I regret that he wasn't allowed to marry Mr. Johnson until 2013 but this lawsuit is going nowhere.

Same Sex Marriage Finally Recognized

     Social Security is still sorting out same sex marriage issues. Here's a case where a marriage was finally recognized. The issue was whether the marriage was recognized at the time that one of the parties to the marriage died.

SSR On Application Of Supreme Court Rulings On Constitutionality

     From Social Security Ruling 17-1p, to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow (footnote omitted):

In recent years, we have received a number of questions regarding how our reopening rules should be applied when we applied a Federal or State law in making our determination or decision, and the Supreme Court of the United States later determines that the law we applied is unconstitutional. The issue has arisen most recently in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) and the constitutionality of State law bans on same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). We are issuing this SSR to explain our policy on reopening a determination or decision due to an error on the face of the evidence when, in making that determination or decision, we applied a Federal or State law that the Supreme Court of the United States later determines to be unconstitutional, and we find that application of that law was material to our determination or decision. ...

When we make a determination or decision by applying a Federal or State law that the Supreme Court of the United States later determines to be unconstitutional, and we find that application of that law was material to our determination or decision, we may reopen the determination or decision within the time frames specified in our regulations based on an error on the face of the evidence under 20 CFR 404.988(b), 404.988(c)(8), 404.989(a)(3), 416.1488(b), and 416.1489(a)(3). In this specific situation, we do not consider a holding by the Supreme Court that a Federal or State law is unconstitutional to be a “change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling upon which the determination or decision was made,” as contemplated in 20 CFR 404.989(b) and 416.1489(b). ...

When we have made a determination or decision by applying a Federal or State law that the Supreme Court of the United States later determines to be unconstitutional, the application of that law would not have been correct and reasonable when made. Consequently, we do not interpret the change in legal interpretation criteria in our rules to prevent us from applying our reopening rules in that specific situation. Accordingly, we may reopen a determination or decision based on an error on the face of the evidence in the limited circumstance where all of the following criteria are met:

1. we made our determination or decision by applying a Federal or State law that the Supreme Court of the United States later determines to be unconstitutional;

2. we find that the application of that law was material to our determination or decision; and

3. we reopen and revise the determination or decision within the following time frames:

-- For claims under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), within four years of the notice of the initial determination, for good cause, under 20 CFR 404.988(b), 404.989(a)(3);

-- For claims under title II of the Act, at any time, if the determination or decision was fully or partially unfavorable, under 20 CFR 404.988(c)(8); and

-- For claims under title XVI of the Act , within two years of the notice of the initial determination, for good cause, under 20 CFR 416.1488(b), 416. 1489(a)(3). ...

Same Sex Marriage Case?

     Social Security isn't done with same sex marriage issues. Some cases dealing with exactly when a marriage is recognized to have existed are still working their way through the system. I'm not sure about this case, however. The bigger problem here may have to do with how long the two were married before one of them died, a problem which has nothing to do with this being a same sex marriage, other than that they might have gotten married earlier but the law didn't allow it. Marriages have to last at least nine months for a person to be considered a widow or widower unless the death was unexpected and the death was very much expected in this case.

Waiver For SSI Overpayments Resulting From Legal Acceptance Of Same Sex Marriage

     Social Security has issued Emergency Message (EM) 16013 to give its staff instructions on overpayment issues resulting from legal acceptance of same sex marriage. Some readers are now thinking "Wait, what? I thought legal acceptance of same sex marriage would result in more money being paid." Overall, yes, somewhat more money will be paid. That's almost always the case for Title II benefits, those based upon someone's earnings record. (For sticklers, I said almost always. I know marriage could eliminate entitlement to widows benefits in some cases, for instance.) However, in Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is a needs-based benefit, marriage usually causes reduction or elimination of entitlement to benefits. There are two ways that same sex marriage can hurt SSI recipients. The first and less common way is if both partners to a same sex marriage are on SSI. The rate for a married couple where both are eligible for SSI is less than the total of what the two would receive if they were not married. The second and more common way that same sex marriage can reduce SSI benefits is that if you're married the income and resources of the person you're married to are attributed to you for purposes of computing your SSI benefit. If, for instance, a disabled person is living with and being supported by a healthy person who is working and has a good income, if they're not married, the disabled person will suffer, at worst, a one-third reduction in his or her SSI benefits for "living in the household of another" whereas if they're married, the disabled person will lose his or her SSI benefits altogether.

     Now that I've explained the problem, what's Social Security going to do about the SSI overpayments resulting from legal acceptance of same sex marriage? Social Security will assume that the claimant is requesting waiver of the overpayment and will waive the overpayment. The claimant need not even file the form normally required to obtain consideration of waiver of an overpayment. The agency is saying it would be "against equity and good conscience" to try to collect these overpayments.

Same Sex Marriage Battle Continues

     From CNN Money:

Kathy Phelan has been waiting more than a year for her first benefit check from Social Security, caught in a back-and-forth with the agency as it works to keep up with a changing legal landscape for same-sex couples. ...

She last heard from the agency in December and was told it could be another 12 to 18 months before a hearing is scheduled on her case. Her claim was first flatly rejected and she has since appealed.

Phelan isn't the only one stuck in limbo with the Social Security Administration.

 "The process is moving inexplicably slowly," said Susan Sommer, an attorney for Lambda Legal, a non-profit that advocates for LGBT rights. ...

 Over the past two decades, there's been a patchwork of same-sex marriage laws across the country as more and more states made it legal. It wasn't until 2013 when the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that they could get federal benefits like Social Security as a married couple. But that still left some in the lurch if they were married in a different state than where they lived.

 That's what happened to Phelan. They married legally in Washington state in 2013, but lived in Arizona where same-sex marriage wasn't recognized until the middle of 2014. Since Kaye lost her battle with cancer five months before it was legal in Arizona, Social Security did not treat Phelan as her legal spouse. ...

 Why, exactly, does that impact Phelan's benefit? Because married couples are entitled to a "survivor" benefit if the higher-earning spouse died first.