Bruno Mancari v. Carolyn Colvin
Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. William J. Bauer, Circuit Judge; Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge and David F. Hamilton, Circuit Judge. [6819875-1]  [16-3122]
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued February 15, 2017
Decided February 17, 2017
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 15 C 1105
Sidney I. Schenkier,
O R D E R
Bruno Mancari is a citizen of Italy who resided in the United States from 1958 to 2007.
He worked for many years in the United States, and he and his employers paid Federal
Insurance Contributions Act taxes toward old‐age insurance and other Social Security
benefits. But Mr. Mancari was removed from the United States to Italy in 2007 after
completing a prison term following his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm
by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In 2012, he applied to the United States
Social Security Administration for old‐age insurance benefits. The Administration
approved his application but immediately suspended payment pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 402(n)(1), which cross‐references 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2), because Mr. Mancari had been
deported due to his conviction. Under § 402(n)(1), Mr. Mancari may not receive old‐age
insurance benefits unless and until he is lawfully re‐admitted to the United States for
Mr. Mancari has challenged the constitutionality of that statutory provision in further
administrative proceedings, before the district court, and now on appeal. He argues that
§ 402(n) violates the Equal Protection Clause (as incorporated in the Fifth Amendment’s
Due Process Clause, see Estate of Kunze v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 233 F.3d 948,
954 (7th Cir. 2000)), and his rights under the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Fifth
Supreme Court precedent forecloses each of those claims. In Flemming v. Nestor, 363
U.S. 603, 612 (1960), the Court upheld an earlier version of § 402(n) against several
constitutional challenges, including an equal protection challenge, by a deported alien.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 340–41 (1976), established that Social Security claimants
are not entitled to the pre‐deprivation hearing Mr. Mancari seeks unless the benefits are
awarded “based upon financial need,” which is not the case here. And a person’s
expectation that he will receive Social Security benefits is not protected by the Takings
Clause; those benefits “may be altered or even eliminated at any time.” U.S. Railroad
Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 174 (1980); Flemming, 363 U.S. at 609–10. To the
extent Mr. Mancari wishes to ask the Supreme Court to revisit any of these decisions, he
has raised those issues in this court. The judgment of the district court dismissing the case
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?