Goldberg v. Kelly

Background

Residents of New York City who received AFDC or state Home Relief challenged procedures that allowed welfare officials to stop their payments without a full hearing beforehand. New York adopted subdivision (b) and Procedure No. 68-18, giving seven days' notice and an informal pre-termination review, with a later post-termination "fair hearing" before an independent hearing officer.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether cutting off aid without an evidentiary hearing violates the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee. It held that because welfare provides basic food, housing, and medical care, loss of benefits threatens "grievous loss" and may leave recipients unable to pursue their claims. The Court required a timely pre-termination hearing with adequate notice, an opportunity for oral presentation, confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses, and the right to retain counsel, though not a full trial. The pre-termination stage needs only limited, speedy safeguards.

Real world impact

The ruling means local and state social service agencies must give needy recipients a meaningful chance to be heard before stopping benefits, affecting caseworkers and administrators. New York's seven-day notice and personal conferences may be adequate in many cases, but failure to permit oral statements, confrontation, or counsel makes procedures unconstitutional. The decision recognizes administrative costs but says those interests do not outweigh recipients' immediate needs.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black dissented, arguing the Court overreached by imposing burdensome procedures, risking higher costs, delays, and reduced welfare access; he warned judges were making policy choices better left to legislatures.