Merriweather v. Burson
| Decision Date | 23 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 13630. |
| Parties | Annie F. MERRIWEATHER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. William H. BURSON, Director of the State Department of Family and Children Services, in his Official Capacity and Personally. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Michael H. Terry, Ralph L. Jacobson, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert J. Castellani, John W. Hinchey, Asst. Attys. Gen., Georgia Dept. of Law, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.
This is a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202. Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343. Plaintiffs seek an injunction restraining the defendant from reducing or terminating Georgia Public Welfare Assistance grants without affording the recipient the pre-termination hearing required by Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). They also pray a judgment declaring that the State-wide regulations which allow reductions and terminations without such a hearing are unconstitutional, depriving plaintiffs of due process and equal protection of the law.
On April 1, 1970, a temporary restraining order was issued prohibiting the defendant from continuing to deny welfare assistance to class representatives and members who had not been afforded a pre-termination hearing prior to the defendant's decision to reduce or terminate their assistance. Simultaneously, the defendant was ordered to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted. The hearing on the show-cause order was held April 20, 1970.
Argument at the hearing centered on the meaning and application of Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970). The contentions of the parties centered around two issues:
(1) Does the Goldberg requirement of pretermination hearings apply to both reductions and terminations of welfare benefits: is every reduction a termination of those benefits no longer to be received?
(2) Is the Goldberg requirement of pre-termination hearings limited to terminations which are based on the particular factual circumstances of an individual recipient or interest group, or must there also be hearings before terminations resulting from across-the-board changes applicable without regard to the circumstances of individual recipients?
Goldberg resolved the specific question whether a state may terminate public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination. In ruling that states may not terminate benefits without such a hearing, the United States Supreme Court held that "the crucial factor in this context * * * is that termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits." Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 264, 90 S.Ct. at 1018.
The same result may arise from a substantial reduction of benefits. It too, may so shift the recipient's central concern to finding the means for daily subsistence, that it undercuts his ability to seek redress from the welfare administration. Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 264, n. 12, 90 S.Ct. 1011. Furthermore, without imputing any lack of good faith to Georgia welfare officials, an extreme reduction of benefits may be the substantial equivalent of termination. Accordingly, there is no distinction between reduction and termination of public assistance substantial enough to warrant differentiation here: Goldberg requires a pre-termination hearing in either case, under the circumstances set out below.
The function of the pre-termination hearing is to produce an initial determination of the validity of the welfare department's grounds for discontinuing payment of benefits. Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 267, 90 S.Ct. 1011. Part II of the Supreme Court's opinion makes it clear that the High Court had in mind the department's factual grounds for discontinuing payments. The aspects of due process which the Supreme Court stressed were those constituting the procedural safeguards surrounding administrative resolution of a factual controversy: notice, an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence, and to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses. Goldberg, 397 U.S. 267-270, 90 S.Ct. 1011. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the hearing need not include the one procedural safeguard most important in resolving legal, rather than factual controversies—the right to counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Edmunds
...does not require a three-judge court. Crow v. California Dept. of Human Resources, 325 F.Supp. 1314 (N.D.Cal. 1970); Merriweather v. Burson, 325 F. Supp. 709 (N.D.Ga.1970); Torres v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 318 F. Supp. 1313, 1318-1324 (S.D.N.Y.1970); McQueen v. Druker, 317 F.Supp. 1......
-
Harrell v. Harder
...nor subject the recipient to "brutal need," the necessity for provision of such notice is eliminated. Cf. Merriweather v. Burson, 325 F.Supp. 709, 710-711 (N.D.Ga.1970), aff'd in part 439 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1971); Velazco v. Minter, 481 F.2d 573, 578 (1st Cir. 1973). The "nine exceptions" ......
-
Cardinale v. Mathews
...for due process purposes between adjudication and rulemaking. Provost v. Betit, 326 F.Supp. 920 (D.Vt.1971); Merriweather v. Burson, 325 F.Supp. 709 (N.D.Ga.1970), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 439 F.2d 1092 (5th Cir. 1971); Dullea v. Ott, 316 F.Supp. 1273 (D.Mass.1970); Smith v. Graham, (C......
-
Rochester v. Ingram
...the failure to give notice as a prelude to a hearing—pre-reduction or post-reduction — is lacking in due process. In Merriweather v. Burson, 325 F. Supp. 709 (N.D.Ga.1970), the Court held that Goldberg v. Kelly required notice and the holding of an administrative hearing only when the right......