He sued the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on the basis that the amendment had deprived him of a property interest in Social Security without due process and was therefore invalid.

Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification.

Charles A. Reich argued that Social Security benefits should be considered to be "property" for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment.

Social Security, he argued, is a compulsory substitute for private property, is heavily relied on, and is important to beneficiaries.

The beneficiary's right to Social Security, he argued, should not be subject to public policy considerations (especially not something resembling a loyalty oath, as was the case in Flemming).