Mathews v. Eldridge
96 S. Ct. 893, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 141, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The procedural protections required by the Due Process Clause for the deprivation of a government benefit depend on a balancing of three factors: the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation through existing procedures and the probable value of additional safeguards, and the government's interest, including fiscal and administrative burdens.
Facts:
- George Eldridge was first awarded Social Security disability benefits in June 1968.
- In March 1972, a state agency responsible for monitoring his condition sent Eldridge a questionnaire.
- Eldridge completed the questionnaire, indicating his medical condition had not improved.
- The state agency obtained reports from Eldridge's physician and a psychiatric consultant.
- Based on these medical reports, the agency made a tentative determination that Eldridge's disability had ceased in May 1972 and notified him by letter.
- Eldridge responded in writing, disputing a characterization of his medical condition but stating the agency had sufficient evidence.
- The state agency then made a final determination that his disability had ceased, which the Social Security Administration (SSA) accepted.
- In July 1972, the SSA notified Eldridge that his benefits would terminate at the end of that month, and advised him of his right to seek post-termination reconsideration.
Procedural Posture:
- Instead of requesting administrative reconsideration, Eldridge filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, challenging the constitutionality of the termination procedures.
- The District Court held that the procedures violated due process and granted an injunction preventing the termination of Eldridge's benefits prior to an evidentiary hearing.
- The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (the government) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that a recipient of Social Security disability benefits be afforded an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of such benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
No. The Due Process Clause does not require a pre-termination evidentiary hearing for Social Security disability benefits. The Court distinguished this case from Goldberg v. Kelly, which required a pre-termination hearing for welfare benefits. Unlike welfare, disability eligibility is not based on financial need, but rather on objective medical evidence. The Court established a three-part balancing test to determine what process is due: 1) the private interest at stake, 2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation under the current procedures and the value of additional safeguards, and 3) the government's interest, including administrative and fiscal burdens. Applying this test, the Court found that while the private interest in uninterrupted benefits is significant, the risk of error in the paper-based, medical-document-driven disability determination process is low. Therefore, the existing procedures allowing for written submissions are adequate, and the substantial government cost and administrative burden of requiring a pre-termination evidentiary hearing in every case outweigh the limited value such a hearing would provide.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. A recipient of disability benefits must be afforded a pre-termination evidentiary hearing, consistent with the principles of Goldberg v. Kelly. The dissent argues that the majority speculates about the degree of deprivation suffered by a terminated recipient, noting that the legislative decision to provide benefits presumes a need that the Court should not denigrate. It highlights the severe real-world consequences for Eldridge, whose home was foreclosed upon and furniture was repossessed after his benefits were terminated. The dissent concludes that the availability of other forms of public assistance is not a valid argument for denying a constitutionally required hearing for this specific benefit.
Analysis:
This case is a cornerstone of modern administrative and constitutional law, establishing the flexible three-part balancing test that has become the standard framework for procedural due process analysis. It marked a significant retreat from the more rigid, trial-type hearing requirements suggested in Goldberg v. Kelly. The Mathews test gives courts and administrative agencies a structured, context-specific method for determining the constitutional adequacy of procedures, balancing individual rights against governmental efficiency. This decision significantly impacts how government agencies can terminate benefits, licenses, and other entitlements, often allowing for less formal procedures than a full evidentiary hearing when the decision is based on reliable, documentary evidence.
