Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.

The Supreme Court's decision in the case was written by Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo and supported the right of Congress to interpret the "general welfare" clause in the Constitution.

The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment.

This is now familiar law.... ... Congress did not improvise a judgment when it found that the award of old age benefits would be conducive to the general welfare.

A recent study of the Social Security Board informs us that one-fifth of the aged in the United States were receiving old-age assistance, emergency relief, institutional care, employment under the works program, or some other form of aid from public or private funds; two-fifths to one-half were dependent on friends and relatives, one-eighth had some income from earnings, and possibly one-sixth had some savings or property.

Apart from the failure of resources, states and local governments are at times reluctant to increase so heavily the burden of taxation to be borne by their residents for fear of placing themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors.

We have seen this in our study of the problem of unemployment compensation.... A system of old age pensions has special dangers of its own if put in force in one state and rejected in another.