Over 3 million Social Security Fairness Act beneficiaries may wait more than a year for higher payments: agency
More than 3.2 million people will see increased Social Security benefits, under a new law.
However, individuals who are affected may have to wait more than a year before they see the extra money that's due to them from the Social Security Fairness Act, the Social Security Administration said in an update on its website.
'Though SSA is helping some affected beneficiaries now, under SSA's current budget, SSA expects that it could take more than one year to adjust benefits and pay all retroactive benefits,' the agency states.
The Social Security Fairness Act eliminates two provisions — known as the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset — that previously reduced Social Security benefits for certain beneficiaries who also had pension income provided from employment where they did not contribute Social Security payroll taxes.
Those provisions reduced benefits for certain workers including state teachers, firefighters and police officers; federal employees who are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System; and individuals who worked under a foreign social security system.
The law affects benefits paid after December 2023. Consequently, affected beneficiaries will receive increases to their monthly benefit checks, as well as retroactive lump sum payments for benefits payable for January 2024 and after.
The benefit increases 'may vary greatly,' depending on an individual's type of Social Security benefits and the amount of pension income they receive, according to the Social Security Administration.
'Some people's benefits will increase very little while others may be eligible for over $1,000 more each month,' the agency states.
The Social Security Administration said it cannot yet provide an estimated timeline for when the benefit adjustments will happen.
In the meantime, the agency is advising beneficiaries to update their mailing address and bank direct deposit information, if necessary. In addition, non-covered pension recipients may now want to apply for benefits, if they are newly eligible following the enacted changes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court lets DOGE access Social Security data for now
The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - disagreed with that decision. "The Government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information right now --before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by Sotomayor. In March, U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland said DOGE was intruding on "the personal affairs of millions of Americans" in a fishing expedition that's based on little more than suspicion." Hollander limited DOGE's access to the information while the courts assess the legality of the Trump administration's actions. The administration argued the judge overstepped, viewing DOGE staffers as the equivalent of intruders breaking into hotel rooms rather than as employees trying to modernize the agency's technology and root out waste - as DOGE officials said they intended to do. "District courts should not be able to wield the Privacy Act to substitute their own view of the government's 'needs' for that of the President and agency heads," Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court in an emergency appeal. DOGE has sought access to multiple agencies as part of its mission to hunt for wasteful spending and dramatically overhaul the federal government. Musk has falsely claimed that millions of Americans who are deceased are still receiving Social Security checks. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued the SSA after DOGE began digging into personal data. They told the Supreme Court justices they shouldn't intervene because the administration hadn't shown an emergency need to access data beyond what the district judge allowed. In addition to overseeing Social Security benefits for retirees and disabled people, the Social Security Administration helps administer programs run by other agencies, including Medicare and Medicaid. A divided federal appeals court on April 30 rejected the Trump administration's request to block the district judge's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert King of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, said the government hadn't shown a need for unfettered access to the highly sensitive personal information that the American people had every reason to believe would be "fiercely protected." DOGE's mission can be largely accomplished through anonymized and redacted data, which is the usual way the agency has handled technology upgrades and fraud detection, he wrote.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court rules Doge can access personal records during legal challenge
The US supreme court on Friday permitted the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge), a key player in Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to the personal information of millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. At the request of the justice department, the justices put on hold Maryland-based US district judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked Doge's access to 'personally identifiable information' in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing Doge unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with Doge. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented. Doge swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on 30 May. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop Doge from accessing sensitive data at the SSA, including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients, including retirees and disabled Americans. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the SSA had been 'ransacked' and that Doge members had been installed without proper vetting or training and had demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in a 17 April ruling found that Doge had failed to explain why its stated mission required 'unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems'. 'For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,' Hollander wrote. 'This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.' Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited Doge staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow Doge affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered Doge affiliates to 'disgorge and delete' any personal information already in their possession. Based in Richmond, Virginia, the fourth US circuit court of appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on 30 April to pause Hollander's block on Doge's unlimited access to SSA records. Justice department lawyers in their supreme court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. 'The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access,' they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which a fourth circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow Doge to access data at the US treasury and education departments and the office of personnel management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against Doge wrote that the case involving social security data was 'substantially stronger' with 'vastly greater stakes', citing 'detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records', such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.
NBC News
a day ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court allows DOGE to access Social Security data
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed members of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security Administration data. The conservative-majority court, with its three liberal justices objecting, granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration asking the justices to lift an injunction issued by a federal judge in Maryland. The unsigned order said that members of the DOGE team assigned to the Social Security Administration should have "access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work." Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion questioning the need for the court to intervene on an emergency basis. "In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes," she added. DOGE, set up by billionaire Elon Musk before his falling out with President Donald Trump, says it wants to modernize systems and detect waste and fraud at the agency. The data it seeks includes Social Security numbers, medical records, and tax and banking information. 'These teams have a business need to access the data at their assigned agency and subject the government's records to much-needed scrutiny,' Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court papers. The lawsuit challenging DOGE's actions was brought by two unions — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the American Federation of Teachers — as well as the Alliance for Retired Americans. They alleged that allowing broader access to the personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. "The agency is obligated by the Privacy Act and its own regulations, practices, and procedures to keep that information secure — and not to share it beyond the circle of those who truly need it," the challengers' lawyers wrote in court papers. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no need to access the specific data at issue. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginua declined to block Hollander's decision, leading to the Trump administration to file its emergency request at the Supreme Court. In a separate order issued at the same time in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted another request filed by the Trump administration. That decision allows the Trump administration to, for now, shield DOGE from freedom of information requests seeking thousands of pages of material. The move formalizes a decision issued by Chief Justice John Roberts on May 23 that temporarily put lower court decisions on hold while the Supreme Court considered what next steps to take. The court also told lower courts to limit the scope of what material could be disclosed. It means the government will not have to respond to requests for documents and allow for the deposition of the DOGE administrator, Amy Gleason, as a lower court had ruled, while litigation continues. The three liberal justices noted their disagreement with that decision too.
