Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Goldberg v. Kelly

Supreme Court of the United States · 1970 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawprocedural due processwelfare benefitsproperty interesthearingFourteenth AmendmentDue Process Clausewelfare termination

Facts

New York amended its welfare procedures after suit was filed and New York City adopted a process under which a recipient received notice of proposed termination, could seek review by a higher official, and could submit a written statement before aid was stopped. The city's procedure did not permit the recipient to appear personally before the reviewing official, present oral evidence, or confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. After termination, the recipient could request a post-termination "fair hearing" before an independent state hearing officer with those protections, and benefits would be restored retroactively if the recipient prevailed. The recipients argued that terminating aid before an evidentiary hearing deprived them of due process because welfare provided the means for essential subsistence.

Issue

Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state to terminate public assistance payments to a particular recipient without first affording that recipient an evidentiary hearing. More specifically, the question was whether New York City's combination of informal pre-termination review and a post-termination fair hearing was constitutionally sufficient.

Rule

When a state seeks to discontinue welfare benefits, due process requires a pre-termination evidentiary hearing, although not a judicial or quasi-judicial trial. At minimum, the recipient must receive timely and adequate notice stating the reasons for proposed termination, an effective opportunity to appear personally and present arguments and evidence orally, an opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to retain counsel, a decision based only on the evidence adduced at the hearing and the governing rules, a statement of reasons and evidence relied on, and an impartial decisionmaker who did not participate in making the determination under review.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Ohio, the county assistance office notified Lena Ortiz that her cash subsistence benefits would end in five days because an investigator believed she had undeclared income. The notice invited Lena to submit a written explanation, and it promised a full evidentiary hearing with witness examination after benefits stopped, with retroactive payment if she won.

If Lena sues before termination, what is the strongest due process argument?

Explanation. The majority held that when the government seeks to discontinue welfare benefits, due process requires an evidentiary hearing before termination. A written-only pretermination exchange plus a later full hearing is inadequate because an eligible recipient may be deprived of the very means by which to live while waiting for review. Retroactive restoration does not eliminate the grievous loss caused by an erroneous cutoff.