*1 v. MORRIS WEINBERGER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, AND EDUCATION, WELFARE Argued

No. January 17, 71-6698. February 22, Decided E. R. McClelland argued the cause and filed a brief petitioner.

Walter H. argued Fleischer the cause for respondent. On the brief Solicitor Griswold, were General Assistant Attorney Wood, General Mark Evans, L. Kathryn H. Baldwin, and Michael Kimmel.

Per Curiam. Twenty days after this Court granted a writ of cer tiorari, 409 U. S. 841, Congress amended the relevant statutory § 202 provisions, (d)(8) of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. §402 (d)(8). C. See 111§ (a), Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Oct. 30, 1972), Pub. L. 92-603, 86 Stat. 1329. The writ of certiorari heretofore granted is dismissed as improvidently granted. Justice Douglas,

Mr. dissenting. In this case, was denied social security bene- fits for his dependent adopted daughter because her court-approved adoption was not supervised by a child- placement agency. As noted the Court, the section which barred his claim at the time it that was filed has repealed.1 been What the Court does not deal with, Social 1972, Amendment of Pub. 92-603, L. 86 Stat. 1329, §111. relief that Con- of the patchwork is the nature

gress provided. has specifies of the new Act2 (b)

Section dates *2 I applies. 111 (a)3 and circumstances to As § which petitioner 111 for qualify § read should increased (b), now (a)’s standards, § benefits under new he could the Act to application secure retroactive of revised cover in period the entire at issue this case. It is true that 111 (a) requires adop- no longer § that court-authorized supervised by be child-placement tions a Peti- agency. not, (a) tioner’s lot is bettered since § imposes a new requirement petitioner which cannot meet: that may paid adopted benefits to an child only be by (a) apply “The amendment made subsection shall with respect monthly payable benefits under II title of the Social Act months after December 1967 on the basis of an application enacted; filed in or after the month in which Act this is except apply respect such that amendments shall not with to bene any fits for month in before the month which this Act is enacted application unless such is filed before the close of the sixth month after in which the month this Act is enacted.” portion The relevant of that section reads:

“(8) In case of— the

“(A) ....

“(B) disability an individual benefits . . . . entitled to insurance adopted a child of such individual such individual became after such the re- entitled to . . . benefits shall be deemed not to meet (1) (C) quirements (i) paragraph of clause . . . of unless such child—

“(C) .... by adoption “(D) (i) legally adopted in an was such individual jurisdiction competent within the United decreed a court of States,

“(ii) living with individual in the United States and was such receiving support . his from such individual . . at least one-half of year immediately such before . month in which for the . . the benefits, disability insurance and individual became entitled to age began living “(iii) he with had not attained the of before such individual.” if the child was living with the beneficiary "for year

immediately before the month in which began the period of [compensable] . disability . . 111 § (a)(8)(D)(ii) (II). Petitioner began receiving disability insurance benefits in July 1957. His adopted daughter was not born until 1965, however, and will accordingly not benefit under the terms of § 111 (a).

Section 111 (b) does not alter 42 U. S. C. § 402 (d) (8) as to the applications filed October 1972 for before bene- fits accruing before October 30, 1972. Such an applica- tion is before us in this case. Petitioner is therefore entitled to benefits under the former statute, if there is merit to his claim that the old § 402 (d) (8) distinctions among types of adoption supervision are constitutionally infirm. Because the new Act does provide not coverage for

petitioner’s child but the old Act applicable remains the claim before us, I would reach the merits.