Court dismisses Marie Becton's Social Security benefit case

In a recent ruling, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed a lawsuit filed by Marie A. Becton against the U.S. government regarding her Social Security benefits. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, which has been ongoing for over twenty years. This decision affects Becton, an 85-year-old widow, who has been fighting to challenge the reduction of her benefits, which she claims were unfairly diminished due to government policies.

Becton’s legal battle stems from the Government Pension Offset (GPO), which she argues eliminated her survivor benefits based on her late husband's Social Security record. Initially, her retirement benefits were reduced to just $25 per month, but they were later adjusted to approximately $16,558 annually as of February 2025. Despite this adjustment, Becton contends that she was denied the full amount of benefits she was entitled to for nearly two decades.

The case, filed under docket number 26-863, highlights Becton’s extensive litigation history, which includes over twenty lawsuits in various federal courts. She has been advised multiple times to seek administrative remedies through the Social Security Administration (SSA) but has refused, claiming the process is unconstitutional. Becton has sought assistance from numerous federal officials and agencies, including the Department of Justice and the FBI, but states she received no response.

Background

Marie A. Becton, the plaintiff in this case, identifies herself as a “Gold Star Wife,” a term used for widows of service members who died in the line of duty. She has reported significant health challenges, including a history of cancer and ongoing cardiac and vision impairments. Her legal claims are based on several constitutional and statutory challenges to the GPO and related provisions of the Social Security Act.

Becton argues that Congress has hidden the Dual Entitlement Rule within the GPO, making the statute invalid. She also challenges what she refers to as “The Fairness Act,” which limits the government’s back-pay liability to one year of benefits. Additionally, she alleges civil rights violations against government officials for enforcing the GPO and claims that Congress has barred judicial review of challenges to the GPO.

The case reached the Court of Federal Claims after Becton filed her complaint, continuing her long-standing battle for what she believes are rightful benefits. The court, however, needed to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear her claims before addressing the merits of her case.

The Ruling

Judge David A. Tapp presided over the case and ruled that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Becton’s claims. The court cited the Tucker Act, which limits the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction to specific types of claims, including those founded on contracts with the United States or seeking refunds for payments made to the government.

The court stated, “Because Ms. Becton contests the reduction of her Social Security benefits and seeks compensation for alleged underpayments, her claims fall squarely within this exclusive statutory review process and are therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.”

The court also noted that the Social Security Act requires challenges related to social security benefits to be brought in the United States district court for the district where the plaintiff resides. This means that Becton’s claims must be filed in a different court, as the Court of Federal Claims does not have the authority to review such matters.

Additionally, the court pointed out that Becton’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 242, a criminal statute, did not provide a basis for jurisdiction, as the Court of Federal Claims cannot hear criminal matters. The court further emphasized that Becton’s constitutional objections to the GPO and related provisions also fell outside its authority.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Becton and others in similar situations. It reinforces the requirement that claims regarding Social Security benefits must follow the specific procedures outlined in the Social Security Act, which channels such disputes to federal district courts. Becton’s case illustrates the challenges faced by individuals seeking to contest government decisions regarding their benefits.

The dismissal of Becton’s case emphasizes the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. The court noted that even if Becton disagreed with the administrative process, she was still required to follow it to have her claims heard in court. This requirement is crucial for anyone looking to challenge decisions made by the SSA regarding their benefits.

What's Next

Becton’s case is dismissed, but she may still seek to file her claims in the appropriate federal district court as required by the Social Security Act. There are no indications in the court filing that she has plans for an appeal, and it remains to be seen if she will pursue her claims through the proper channels.