Goldberg v. Kelly

Last updated

Goldberg v. Kelly
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 13, 1969
Decided March 23, 1970
Full case nameGoldberg, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York v. Kelly, et al.
Citations397 U.S. 254 ( more )
90 S. Ct. 1011; 25 L. Ed. 2d 287; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 80
Case history
PriorAppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Kelly v. Wyman, 294 F. Supp. 893 (S.D.N.Y. 1969); probable jurisdiction noted, 394 U.S. 971(1969).
Holding
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a full evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government benefits is deprived of such benefits.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Douglas, Harlan, White, Marshall
DissentBurger
DissentBlack
DissentStewart
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government welfare benefits can be deprived of such benefits. [1] [2]

Contents

The individual losing benefits is entitled to an oral hearing before an impartial decision-maker as well as the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and the right to a written statement setting out the evidence relied upon and the legal basis for the decision. [3] There is no right to a formal trial. The case was decided 5–3. (There was a vacancy on the Court because of the resignation of Abe Fortas.) Goldberg v. Kelly, Shapiro v. Thompson , and King v. Smith were a part of the set of successful Supreme Court cases that dealt with Welfare, specifically referred to as a part of 'The Welfare Cases'. [4]

Issues

Federal welfare was administered by the new Department of Health Education and Welfare. Seal of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.svg
Federal welfare was administered by the new Department of Health Education and Welfare.
  1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution demand a hearing before the termination of statutorily defined welfare benefits?
  2. Does a pre-termination "informal hearing" in a welfare case satisfy the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment?
  3. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a full "evidentiary hearing" prior to termination of welfare benefits?
  4. Does the welfare recipient have the right to counsel or an attorney at an evidentiary hearing?
  5. To what extent does the welfare administrative decision maker need to be impartial?

Holdings

1. Welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them and so procedural due process is applicable to their termination.[ citation needed ]

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 and the State's interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated clearly outweigh the State's competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens. [ citation needed ]

3. A pre-termination evidentiary hearing is necessary to provide the welfare recipient with procedural due process.[ citation needed ] (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 decision maker.[ citation needed ]

(b) Counsel need not be furnished at the pre-termination hearing, but the recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney. [ citation needed ]

(c) A decision must rest "solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing." [5]

(d) The decision maker need not file a full opinion or make formal findings of fact or conclusions of law but should state the reasons for his determination and indicate the evidence he relied on. [6]

(e) The decision maker must be impartial, and although prior involvement in some aspects of a case will not necessarily bar a welfare official from acting as decision maker, he should not have participated in making the determination under review. [6] [7]

Discussion

Federal involvement in welfare was designed to end the poverty of big city tenements, among other places. 97 orchard street.JPG
Federal involvement in welfare was designed to end the poverty of big city tenements, among other places.

The Goldberg decision set the parameters for procedural due process when dealing with the deprivation of a government benefit or entitlement. The Court held that a person has a property interest in certain government entitlements, which require notice and a hearing before a governmental entity (either state or federal) takes them away. Government-provided entitlements from the modern welfare state increased substantially in the United States during the 20th century. The Goldberg court decided that such entitlements (like welfare payments, government pensions, professional licenses), are a form of "new property" that require pre-deprivation procedural protection and so did away with the traditional distinction between rights and privileges.

Growth of federal involvement in funding and administrating welfare began under President John F. Kennedy. President Kennedy signing the 1961 Amendments into law, June 30, 1961.jpg
Growth of federal involvement in funding and administrating welfare began under President John F. Kennedy.

The majority stated that welfare benefits are property [8] and articulated the general proposition that welfare enjoys the same legal protection as other property. [9] Justice Brennan noted that welfare benefits are "a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them" and added that "it may be realistic today to regard welfare entitlements as more like 'property' than a 'gratuity.'" [10] Here Brennan cited Charles A. Reich's article "The New Property". [9] The prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law in the Fourteenth Amendment therefore applies to benefits termination. [9]

This specific case dealt with 20 individuals who had been suspected of welfare fraud by New York City officials and were then denied municipal benefits. [3] The opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice William Brennan, while dissenting opinions were filed by Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart and Chief Justice Warren Burger. Brennan said at his retirement that he considered it the most important case he had ever decided; conservative columnist David Frum once claimed that the case was a major factor in New York City's 1975 budget meltdown. [3]

Twenty residents of New York City, including John Kelly, appealed the termination of their benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Their assistance had been terminated or was about to be terminated without a pre-termination hearing. The procedures provided by the State Department of Social Services' Official Regulations did include a pre-termination review and a post-termination hearing. [11]

Welfare expanded under the Great Society programs of Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. Lyndon Johnson signing Medicare bill, with Harry Truman, July 30, 1965.jpg
Welfare expanded under the Great Society programs of Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s.

The decision answered questions that had been unresolved in the previous Supreme Court cases of Rudder v. United States [12] and Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham . [13] [14] The cases involved questions of denial of tenancy or eviction in governmental housing projects.

It has been noted that the precarious financial status of those in poverty may preclude an extensive litigation process despite the decision. The abstention doctrine presupposes the adequacy of state process to protect constitutional rights. Poor people may lack the funds to pursue a court hearing process. [15] [16] [17] One solution has been the use of a preliminary injunction, which preserves the status quo while the litigation proceeds. [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social Security Act</span> 1935 U.S. law creating the Social Security program and unemployment insurance

The Social Security Act of 1935 is a law enacted by the 74th United States Congress and signed into law by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. The law created the Social Security program as well as insurance against unemployment. The law was part of Roosevelt's New Deal domestic program.

Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect substantive laws and certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Courts have asserted that such protections come from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Substantive due process demarks the line between those acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and those that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent. In 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas called on the Supreme Court to reconsider all of its rulings that were based on substantive due process.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.

Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court decision affecting educational case law involving tenure and due process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hearing (law)</span> Court proceeding

In law, a hearing is the formal examination of a case before a judge. It is a proceeding before a court or other decision-making body or officer, such as a government agency or a legislative committee.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that individuals have a statutorily granted property right in Social Security benefits, and the termination of such benefits implicates due process but does not require a pre-termination hearing. The case is significant in the development of American administrative law.

A bright-line rule is a clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. The purpose of a bright-line rule is to produce predictable and consistent results in its application. The term "bright-line" in this sense generally occurs in a legal context.

A subpoena ad testificandum is a court summons to appear and give oral testimony for use at a hearing or trial. The use of a writ for purposes of compelling testimony originated in the ecclesiastical courts of Church during the High Middle Ages, especially in England. The use of the subpoena writ was gradually adopted over time by civil and criminal courts in England and the European continent.

The right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) is an educational entitlement of all students in the United States who are identified as having a disability, guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), was a US Supreme Court case. It held that a public school must conduct a hearing before subjecting a student to suspension. Also, a suspension without a hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court concerning alleged discrimination against a nontenured teacher at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh.

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that:

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court to determine and delineate several questions concerning administrative procedure in Social Security disability cases. Among the questions considered was the propriety of using physicians' written reports generated from medical examinations of a disability claimant, and whether these could constitute "substantial evidence" supportive of finding nondisability under the Social Security Act.

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated state durational residency requirements for public assistance and helped establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Shapiro was a part of a set of three welfare cases all heard during the 1968–69 term by the Supreme Court, alongside Harrell v. Tobriner and Smith v. Reynolds. Additionally, Shapiro, King v. Smith (1968), and Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) comprise the "Welfare Cases", a set of successful Supreme Court cases that dealt with welfare.

Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a nonprobationary federal civil service employee's claim to a full hearing prior to dismissal over charges he had brought the government into disrepute by recklessly accusing a superior of corruption. The governing federal law prescribed not only grounds for removal but also removal procedures. The employee could only be removed for "cause," but the procedures did not provide for an adversarial hearing prior to termination. The Court also rejected the respondent's claim that his First Amendment rights were violated.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974), is an administrative law case of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that extensive state regulation of a public utility does not transform its acts into state action that is reviewable by a federal court under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), is a Supreme Court case involving the burden of proof for the revocation of parental rights. The case arose when the Ulster County, New York, Department of Social Services sought to revoke John Santosky II and Annie Santosky's parental rights to their three children. Under Section 622 of the New York State Family Court Act, the state was permitted to revoke parental rights to a natural child if, after a fair preponderance of the evidence, a court found "permanent neglect." The New York State Family Court found such neglect by using the "fair preponderance" standard. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the burden of proof used.

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, is a unanimous 1982 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to have his discrimination complaint adjudged by Illinois's Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC), which had dismissed it for its own failure to meet a deadline. The decision reversed the Illinois Supreme Court's holding to the contrary two years prior.

References

  1. ↑ Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
  2. ↑ "Goldberg v. Kelly | Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs" . Retrieved January 3, 2024.
  3. 1 2 3 Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s . New York, New York: Basic Books. pp.  228–229. ISBN   0-465-04195-7.
  4. ↑ West, Guida (1981). The National Welfare Rights Movement : The Social Protest of Poor Women. New York, N.Y: Praeger. pp. 328–345.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  5. ↑ Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), opinion of the court, footnote 4. Text of footnote: In Goldberg the Court held that the pretermination hearing must include the following elements: (1) "timely and adequate notice detailing the reasons for a proposed termination"; (2) "an effective opportunity [for the recipient] to defend by confronting any adverse witnesses and by presenting his own arguments and evidence orally"; (3) retained counsel, if desired; (4) an "impartial" decisionmaker; (5) a decision resting "solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing"; (6) a statement of reasons for the decision and the evidence relied on. 397 U.S., at 266 -271. In this opinion the term "evidentiary hearing" refers to a hearing generally of the type required in Goldberg.
  6. 1 2 P. 271
  7. ↑ 294 F. Supp. 893, affirmed
  8. ↑ Compare Justice Black's dissenting opinion: "The Court, however, relies upon the Fourteenth Amendment and in effect says that failure of the government to pay a promised charitable installment to an individual deprives that individual of his own property, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It somewhat strains credulity to say that the government's promise of charity to an individual is property belonging to that individual when the government denies that the individual is honestly entitled to receive such a payment." Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 275 (Black, J., dissenting).
  9. 1 2 3 Amy Shapiro (June 28, 2012). "Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)". American Civil Liberties. Retrieved January 19, 2014.
  10. ↑ Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 262.
  11. ↑ "Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)". Justia.
  12. ↑ 96 U.S. App. D. C. 329, 226 F.2d 51 (1955)
  13. ↑ Thorpe v. Housing Auth. of Durham, 386 U.S. 670 (1966).
  14. ↑ Thorpe v. Housing Auth. of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969).
  15. ↑ LaFrance, ibid., pp. 514 et seq
  16. ↑ Dombrowski v. Pfister , 380 U.S. 479 (1965).
  17. ↑ Douglas v. City of Jeannette , 319 U.S. 157 (1943), rehearing denied, 319 U.S. 472(1943).
  18. ↑ LaFrance, ibid. p. 511
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.