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
|Prior history||Grant of certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals, 492 F.2d 1230|
|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|
|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.|
|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, that the termination of those benefits implicates due process, but that the termination of those benefits does not require a pre-termination hearing. The case is significant in the development of American administrative law.
In determining the amount of process due, the court should weigh 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
Social security benefits are a statutorily created property right implicating due process.
Termination of social security benefits does not require a pre-termination hearing.
Facts and procedural posture
The SSA terminated Eldridge's social security benefits through 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.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no pre-termination hearing was required.