397 U.S. 254 (1970), 62, Goldberg v. Kelly

Docket NºNo. 62
Citation397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287
Party NameGoldberg v. Kelly
Case DateMarch 23, 1970
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 254

397 U.S. 254 (1970)

90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287

Goldberg

v.

Kelly

No. 62

United States Supreme Court

March 23, 1970

Argued October 13, 1969

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Syllabus

Appellees are New York City residents receiving financial aid under the federally assisted Aid to Families with Dependent Children program or under New York State's general Home Relief program who allege that officials administering these programs terminated, or were about to terminate, such aid without prior notice and hearing, thereby denying them due process of law. The District Court held that only a pre-termination evidentiary hearing would satisfy the constitutional command, and rejected the argument of the welfare officials that the combination of the existing post-termination "fair hearing" and informal pre-termination review was sufficient.

Held:

1. Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them, and procedural due process is applicable to their termination. Pp. 261-263.

2. The interest of the eligible recipient in the uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, which provides him with essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care, coupled with the State's interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated, clearly outweighs the State's competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens. Pp. 264-266.

3. A pre-termination evidentiary hearing is necessary to provide the welfare recipient with procedural due process. Pp. 264, 266-271.

(a) Such hearing need not take the form of a judicial or quasi-judicial trial, but the recipient must be provided with timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for termination, and an effective opportunity to defend by confronting adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally before the decisionmaker. Pp. 266-270.

Page 255

(b) Counsel need not be furnished at the pre-termination hearing, but the recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so desires. P. 270.

(c) The decisionmaker need not file a full opinion or make formal findings of fact or conclusions of law, but should state the reason for his determination and indicate the evidence he relied on. P. 271.

(d) The decisionmaker must be impartial, and, although prior involvement in some aspects of a case will not necessarily bar a welfare official from acting as decisionmaker, he should not have participated in making the determination under review. P. 271.

294 F.Supp. 893, affirmed.

BRENNAN, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question for decision is whether a State that terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This action was brought in the District Court for the Southern District of New York by residents of New

Page 256

York City receiving financial aid under the federally assisted program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or under New York State's general Home Relief program.1 Their complaint alleged that the New York State and New York City officials administering these programs terminated, or were about to terminate, such aid without prior notice and hearing, thereby denying them due process of law.2 At the time

Page 257

the suits were filed, there was no requirement of prior notice or hearing of any kind before termination of financial aid. However, the State and city adopted procedures for notice and hearing after the suits were brought, and the plaintiffs, appellees here, then challenged the constitutional adequacy of those procedures.

The State Commissioner of Social Services amended the State Department of Social Services' Official Regulations to require that local social services officials proposing to discontinue or suspend a recipient's financial aid do so according to a procedure that conforms to either subdivision (a) or subdivision (b) of § 351.26 of the regulations as amended.3 The City of New York

Page 258

elected to [90 S.Ct. 1015] promulgate a local procedure according to subdivision (b). That subdivision, so far as here pertinent, provides that the local procedure must include the giving of notice to the recipient of the reasons for a proposed discontinuance or suspension at least seven days prior to its effective date, with notice also that, upon request, the recipient may have the proposal reviewed by a local welfare official holding a position superior to that of the supervisor who approved the proposed discontinuance or suspension, and, further, that the recipient may submit, for purposes of the review, a written statement to demonstrate why his grant should not be discontinued or suspended. The decision by the reviewing official whether to discontinue or suspend aid must be made expeditiously, with written notice of the decision to the recipient. The section further expressly provides that

[a]ssistance shall not be discontinued or suspended prior to the date such notice of decision is sent to the recipient and his representative, if any, or prior to the proposed effective date of discontinuance or suspension, whichever occurs later.

Pursuant to subdivision (b), the New York City Department of Social Services promulgated Procedure No. 68-18. A caseworker who has doubts about the recipient's continued eligibility must first discuss them with the recipient. If the caseworker concludes that the recipient is no longer eligible, he recommends termination

Page 259

of aid to a unit supervisor. If the latter concurs, he sends the recipient a letter stating the reasons for proposing to terminate aid and notifying him that, within seven days, he may request that a higher official review the record, and may support the request with a written statement, prepared personally or with the aid of an attorney or other person. If the reviewing official affirms the determination of ineligibility, aid is stopped immediately and the recipient is informed by letter of the reasons for the action. Appellees' challenge to this procedure emphasizes the absence of any provisions for the personal appearance of the recipient before the reviewing official, [90 S.Ct. 1016] for oral presentation of evidence, and for confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses.4 However, the letter does inform the recipient that he may request a post-termination "fair hearing."5 This is a proceeding before an independent

Page 260

state hearing officer at which the recipient may appear personally, offer oral evidence, confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him, and have a record made of the hearing. If the recipient prevails at the "fair hearing," he is paid all funds erroneously withheld.6 HEW Handbook, pt. IV, §§ 6200-6500; 18 NYCRR §§ 4.2-84.23. A recipient whose aid is not restored by a "fair hearing" decision may have judicial review. N.Y.Civil Practice Law and Rules, Art. 78 (1963). The recipient is so notified, 18 NYCRR § 84.16.

I

The constitutional issue to be decided, therefore, is the narrow one whether the Due Process Clause requires that the recipient he afforded an evidentiary hearing before the termination of benefits.7 The District Court held

Page 261

that only a pre-termination evidentiary hearing would satisfy the constitutional command, and rejected the argument of the state and city officials that the combination of the post-termination "fair hearing" with the informal pre-termination review disposed of all due process claims. The court said:

While post-termination review is relevant, there is one overpowering fact [90 S.Ct. 1017] which controls here. By hypothesis, a welfare recipient is destitute, without funds or assets. . . . Suffice it to say that to cut off a welfare recipient in the face of . . . "brutal need" without a prior hearing of some sort is unconscionable unless overwhelming considerations justify it.

Kelly v. Wyman, 294 F.Supp. 893, 899, 900 (1968). The court rejected the argument that the need to protect the public's tax revenues supplied the requisite "overwhelming consideration."

Against the justified desire to protect public funds must be weighed the individual's overpowering need in this unique situation not to be wrongfully deprived of assistance. . . . While the problem of additional expense must be kept in mind, it does not justify denying a hearing meeting the ordinary standards of due process. Under all the circumstances, we hold that due process requires an adequate hearing before termination of welfare benefits, and the fact that there is a later constitutionally fair proceeding does not alter the result.

Id. at 901. Although state officials were party defendants in the action, only the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York appealed. We noted probable jurisdiction, 394 U.S. 971 (1969), to decide important issues that have been the subject of disagreement in principle between the three-judge court in the present case and that convened in Wheeler v. Montgomery, No. 14, post, p. 280, also decided today. We affirm.

Appellant does not contend that procedural due process is not applicable to the termination of welfare benefits.

Page 262

Such benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.8 Their termination involves state action that adjudicates important rights. The constitutional challenge cannot be answered by an argument that public assistance benefits are "a `privilege,' and not a 'right.'" Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 627 n. 6 (1969). Relevant constitutional restraints apply as much to the withdrawal of public assistance benefits as to disqualification for unemployment...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
5023 practice notes
  • Representation-Case Procedures
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 15, 2014
    • 15 Diciembre 2014
    ...\650\ Bennett Industries, Inc., 313 NLRB 1363 (1994). \651\ Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970) (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914), and Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 Now, in one fell swoop of agency policymaking, those procedural rights are gone. In their p......
  • Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 01, 2016
    • 1 Noviembre 2016
    ...and thus does not satisfy the due process requirements established in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970); and Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959) for depriving schools of their property rights to funds already received. Several commenters sug......
  • Decisions And Orders:
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 07, 2011
    • 31 Marzo 2011
    ...far exceeds what the Supreme Court has held that an agency must do to comply with the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, In Goldberg, the Supreme Court held that `` `where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action ......
  • Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, L.L.C., and SND Health Care, L.L.C.; Decision and Order
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 10, 2016
    • 10 Noviembre 2016
    ...it due process.'' Margy Temponeras, 77 FR 45675, 45676 n.4 (2012) (quoting McClelland, 606 F.2d at 1285)). See also Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 270 (1970) (``where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the ev......
  • Free signup to view additional results
4788 cases
  • 315 F.Supp. 484 (D.Conn. 1970), Civ. 13267, McClellan v. Shapiro
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit District of Connecticut
    • 16 Abril 1970
    ...an awareness of what was pungently referred to in Kelly v. Wyman, 294 F.Supp. 893, 900 (S.D.N.Y. 1968), aff'd sub nom. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970), as the 'brutal need' of welfare clients when their benefits are wholly terminated. The Supreme Court,......
  • 348 F.Supp. 807 (M.D.Pa. 1972), Civ. 72-132, Meyers v. Alldredge
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 3th Circuit Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 16 Junio 1972
    ...any discussion involving the perimeters of procedural due process is a consideration of the Supreme Court's decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1969). Goldberg held that before welfare benefits may be terminated, the agency must conduct an adversary p......
  • 349 F.Supp. 1164 (E.D.Pa. 1972), Civ. A. 70-3303, Gross v. Fox
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 3th Circuit Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 24 Octubre 1972
    ...the replevin provisions unconstitutional. See Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); Coe v. Armour Fertilizer, 237 U.S. 413, 35 S.Ct. 625, 59 L.Ed. 1027 "If the right to notice and a hear......
  • 360 F.Supp. 602 (E.D.N.Y. 1973), 73 C 686, Horodner v. Cahn
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 2nd Circuit Eastern District of New York
    • 15 Junio 1973
    ...by the Fourteenth Amendment. Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). This is but an application of the general proposition that relevant constitutional restraints limit state......
  • Free signup to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • One Year after Oil States, Constitutional Questions Remain
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • 5 Julio 2019
    ...that due process requires, at a minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). At oral argument in Oil States, the Court expressed concern about the degree of impartiality ......
  • Judge Furman: Secretary of Commerce Must Sit for Deposition Over Census Citizenship Question
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 28 Septiembre 2018
    ...Ross’s intent and credibility without granting Plaintiffs an opportunity to confront and cross-examine him. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 269 (1970) (“In almost every setting where important decisions turn on questions of fact, due process requires an opportunity to confront a......
  • Californians Like To Whistle While They Work
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • 30 Noviembre 2012
    ...requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385, 394 (1914). See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 function JDS_LoadEvent(func) { var existingOnLoad = window.onload; if (typeof window.onload != 'function') { window.onload = func } else { wind......
192 books & journal articles
  • Executive Detention, Boumediene, and the New Common Law of Habeas
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review Nbr. 95-2, February 2010
    • 1 Febrero 2010
    ...see also Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 353 (1997) (civil commitment of violent sexual offenders); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 270 (1970) (termination of government benefits); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 n.5 (1953) (deportation proceeding); United States v. Anderso......
  • The new private-regulation skepticism: due process, non-delegation, and antitrust challenges.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 37 Nbr. 3, June - June 2014
    • 22 Junio 2014
    ...Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 472-73 (2001). (255.) Id. at 473. (256.) See 5 U.S.C. [section] 553(b)-(c) (2012). (257.) See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). (258.) See supra notes 138-39 and accompanying text. (259.) See 5 U.S.C. [section] 551(1) (defining "agency"); id. [section] 55......
  • Evidence handed to the IRS criminal division on a "civil" platter: constitutional infringements on taxpayers.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 91 Nbr. 3, March 2001
    • 22 Marzo 2001
    ...e.g., Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 596 (1988) (stating that the Fifth Amendment safeguards procedural due process); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). (175) See Griswold, 381 U.S. 479; GERALD GUNTHER & KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 6154516 (13th ed. 1997). (176) United ......
  • Dodd-Frank orderly liquidation authority: too big for the constitution?
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 163 Nbr. 1, December - December 2014
    • 1 Diciembre 2014
    ...record was entitled to a hearing before termination given the importance of employment to an individual's welfare); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 261 (1970) (holding that welfare recipients are entitled to an adjudicatory hearing before termination of their benefits given the "bruta......
  • Free signup to view additional results
24 provisions
  • Representation-Case Procedures
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 15, 2014
    • 15 Diciembre 2014
    ...\650\ Bennett Industries, Inc., 313 NLRB 1363 (1994). \651\ Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970) (quoting Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914), and Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 Now, in one fell swoop of agency policymaking, those procedural rights are gone. In their p......
  • Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program, and Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant Program
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 01, 2016
    • 1 Noviembre 2016
    ...and thus does not satisfy the due process requirements established in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970); and Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959) for depriving schools of their property rights to funds already received. Several commenters sug......
  • Decisions And Orders:
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 07, 2011
    • 31 Marzo 2011
    ...far exceeds what the Supreme Court has held that an agency must do to comply with the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, In Goldberg, the Supreme Court held that `` `where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action ......
  • Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, L.L.C., and SND Health Care, L.L.C.; Decision and Order
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 10, 2016
    • 10 Noviembre 2016
    ...it due process.'' Margy Temponeras, 77 FR 45675, 45676 n.4 (2012) (quoting McClelland, 606 F.2d at 1285)). See also Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 270 (1970) (``where governmental action seriously injures an individual, and the reasonableness of the action depends on fact findings, the ev......
  • Free signup to view additional results