Mathews v. Eldridge
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2007) |
| Mathews v. Eldridge | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 6, 1975 Decided February 24, 1976 | |
| Full case name | F. David Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, v. George H. Eldridge |
| Citations | 424 U.S. 319 (more) 96 S. Ct. 893; 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Eldridge v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp. 520 (W.D. Va. 1973), affirmed, 493 F.2d 1230 (4th Cir. 1974), cert. granted, 419 U.S. 1104 (1975). |
| Holding | |
| Due process does not require a Goldberg-type hearing prior to the termination of social security disability benefits on the ground that the worker is no longer disabled | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
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.
Legal principles
[edit]Determining the constitutional sufficiency of administrative procedures, prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending review, requires consideration of three factors:
- The interests of the individual in retaining their property and the injury threatened by the official action;
- The risk of error through the procedures used and probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;
- The costs and administrative burden of the additional process, and the interests of the government in efficient adjudication.[1]
The Court determined that Social Security benefits are a statutorily-created property right and so implicate due process.[2]
However, after balancing the three factors, the Court ruled that the administrative procedures in place were constitutional and held that termination of Social Security benefits does not require a pre-termination hearing. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 347-49 (1976).
Background
[edit]The Social Security Administration terminated Eldridge's benefits by its normal procedures. However, Eldridge was not provided with a hearing before the termination of his benefits in which he could argue for a continuation of the benefits. He sued even though he had not exhausted his post-termination administrative remedies. The district court held that the termination was unconstitutional, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Decision
[edit]The Supreme Court reversed and held that pre-termination hearing was not required.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]External links
[edit]- Text of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)