Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Ortwein v. Schwab

Supreme Court of the United States · 1973 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAccess to CourtsWelfare Benefitsappellate filing feeindigencywelfare benefits

Facts

Ortwein's Oregon old-age assistance was reduced by about $39 per month after a county welfare agency found that he shared shelter and expenses with another person. Faubion's welfare payments were reduced when the Public Welfare Division disallowed most of her claimed work-training expense deductions. Both appellants received agency hearings, and the Public Welfare Division upheld the challenged determinations. Oregon law allowed judicial review in the Oregon Court of Appeals, but all civil appellants had to pay a $25 filing fee, and appellants' motions to proceed in forma pauperis were denied.

Issue

Whether Oregon's $25 appellate filing fee, as applied to indigent welfare recipients seeking judicial review of adverse welfare agency decisions after agency hearings, violates the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the First Amendment right to petition as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

A state may require indigent welfare claimants to pay a modest appellate filing fee to obtain judicial review of adverse welfare determinations when the claim involves no fundamental interest, the claimants have already received evidentiary agency hearings not conditioned on payment of a fee, and the fee is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in offsetting court operating costs. In that setting, the fee does not violate due process, equal protection, or the First Amendment right to petition.

🔒

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 Ohio, Lena Ortiz receives state disability assistance. After a no-cost evidentiary hearing before the state benefits board, the board affirms a $55 monthly reduction in her payments; Ohio law then allows judicial review in the state court of appeals only upon payment of a $40 civil filing fee, which Lena cannot afford.

If Lena argues that due process requires the state to waive the filing fee so she can obtain judicial review, which is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a modest appellate filing fee may constitutionally be required of indigent welfare claimants seeking judicial review after they already received an evidentiary agency hearing. The Court emphasized that the claim concerns increased welfare payments, which do not implicate a fundamental interest of the sort involved in marriage, and that due process does not require a state to provide appellate review at all. Because Lena had a fee-free administrative hearing, due process is not violated by conditioning post-hearing judicial review on payment of the filing fee. (Derived from Ortwein v. Schwab (1973).)