Court: Surviving Spouse Needn’t Share Pension

A surviving spouse is entitled to her late husband’s full pension and need not share it with his children from an earlier marriage, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, undercutting estate laws in nine states, including Washington and Idaho.

The 5-4 decision affects an aspect of the “community property” law, which says that what is earned during a marriage is held equally by a man and woman.

Until now, under this law, a non-working spouse could leave in her will her share of marital property to her children, including money earned for retirement. The children were entitled to that money even if the father remarried and named his second wife beneficiary of his pension.

But the Supreme Court voided those provisions Monday and ruled his second wife is entitled to all of her husband’s retirement funds.

The federal pension law was designed to protect “the economic security of surviving spouses” and “to ensure (them) a stream of income,” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. It may seem unfair to void the will of a deceased spouse, but “Congress has decided to favor the living over the dead,” he said.

Monday’s ruling does not affect divorced spouses who are still living.

The other states affected by the ruling are Arizona, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Future of high-speed chases

The justices also announced Monday that they would use the case of a dangerous high-speed police chase to determine when police misconduct is severe enough to be considered a violation of constitutional rights.

The case of Sacramento County vs. Lewis will be heard next year and test if the legal standard for liability should be whether the police conduct “shocks the conscience” or whether it must merely meet the standard of showing “reckless disregard” and “deliberate indifference” for someone’s safety.

In a sharply disputed ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in October that police could be forced to pay damages if officers showed a “reckless disregard” for the fleeing suspect’s life and safety when they undertook the chase.

The ruling reinstated a lawsuit by the parents of a 16-year-old boy who died after a patrol car driven by a Sacramento County sheriff’s deputy crashed into the motorcycle on which the teenager was a passenger.

The deputy had pursued the motorcycle at speeds of up to 100 mph after the teenage driver ignored a command to stop. The motorcycle eventually skidded to a stop, and the cruiser, following closely at high speed, slammed into it after skidding 166 feet.

In an unusual move, lawyers for 14 states and several California cities joined Sacramento County in urging the justices to reverse the appeals court decision.

They said the ruling will allow dangerous criminals to flee with impunity, and in fact will encourage them to speed away.

They advocated a standard that would make police officers liable only if their conduct “shocks the conscience.”