Conant v. HillConant v. Hill
MEMORANDUM
The plaintiffs in the above styled action seek relief from that portion of Va. Code Ann. 46.1-368 (b) (1970 Cum. Supp.), which requires that an application for a driver’s license shall contain, among other things, the applicаnt’s social security number. The defendants are Vern L. Hill, Commissioner of the Division of Motor Vehicles, (D.M.V.), and J. B. Warfiеld, Director, Bureau of Operators’ Licenses, D.M.V. A temporary restraining order was previously denied duе to the inability of the plaintiffs to show they were suffering irreparable harm.
The defendants moved to strike certain paragraphs of the complaint and for a more definite statement. A motion to dismiss the аction pursuant to
In that plaintiffs sought injunction of § 46.1-368 (b) on constitutional grounds, a motion for convening of a three-judge court was made.
The facts are undisputed. The plaintiffs are all residents of Virginia who either will have to furnish their social security numbers in ordеr to obtain driver’s licenses or to renew their licenses received prior to institution of the requirement, or who wish to have the numbers previously furnished by them removed from their licenses and files. They contend that § 46.1-368(b) is рreempted by
The motion to dismiss under
First, even if the federal statutes are to be construed as the plaintiffs contend, § 46.1-368(b) does not violаte them. In order for a potential driver to obtain a Virginia driver’s license he, the driver, must furnish his social security number to D.M.V. The statutes refer to the Social Security Administration, its employees and agents as being prohibited from disclosing any information about a person’s social security account, not the holder of a social security card. Thus the statutes, on their face, are not in conflict, thereby completely eroding the argument that the federal statutes specifically pre-empt § 46.1-368 (b). The Court has previоusly held that § 46.1-368(b) does not bring about a constitutional deprivation of privacy. Conant v. Hill, supra.
*27 However, the plаintiffs also argue that the federal interest in Social Security administration is so pervasive as to leave no room for any statutory legislation on the subject, unless by specific authorization by federal lаw, of which admittedly there is none.
Prior to a holding that a. state is pre-empted from passing legislation on a particular subject, three things must be present:
(1) The scheme of federal regulation must be so pеrvasive as to make reasonable the inference that the Congress left no room for the statеs to supplement it;
(2) The federal statutes touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject;
(3) Enforсement of the state act presents a serious danger of conflict with the administration of the fedеral program. See Pennsylvania v. Nelson,
(4) The answer to whether the social security laws are so рervasive as to preclude a request by the Commonwealth of Virginia that a driver furnish his social security numbеr before being licensed to drive is contained in a statement by the Hon. Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary оf Health, Education and Welfare, to the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciаry, United States Senate, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess„, at hearings on Computers, Data Banks and the Bill of Rights, March 15, 1971. Therein he stated that even though the Social Security Administration’s general policy is to not encourage non-federal use of social security numbers, “[i]t is not illegal for a non-Federal organization to use the sociаl security number in its record keeping system. Such use in and of itself involves no disclosure of information, and thus doеs not involve a breach of Federal law or regulation.”
When faced with a problem of statutory construction great deference is to be given to the interpretation of a particular statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration. So long as that interpretation is a reasonable one, it must be sustained. Udall v. Tallman,
Hence, the motion for summary judgment by the defendants will be granted. The disposition of that motion makes it unnecessary to consider the other pending motions.
An appropriate order will enter.