Mathews v. Eldridge

Mathews v. Eldridge
Mathews v. Eldridge
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
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
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, that the termination of those benefits implicates due process, but that the termination of Social Security benefits does not require a pre-termination hearing. The case is important in the development of American administrative law.


Legal principles

In determining the amount of process due, the court should weigh three factors:

  1. The interests of the individual in retaining their property, and the injury threatened by the official action
  2. The risk of error through the procedures used and probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;
  3. 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.

See also

External links

  • Text of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) is available from: Justia · Findlaw

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Mathews v. Eldridge test — A three part test that determines whether an individual has received due process (See due process of law) under the Constitution. The test balances (1) the importance of the interest at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the… …   Law dictionary

  • Brody Eldridge — Données générales Nom complet William Brody Eldridge …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Ricardo Mathews — Données générales Nom complet Ricardo Eugene Mathews Jr Nationalité  États Unis Date de naissance …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Wilkinson v. Austin — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Wilkinson v. Austin ArgueDate=March 30 ArgueYear=2005 DecideDate=June 13 DecideYear=2005 FullName=Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction v. Austin et al. USVol=545 USPage=209 Citation=… …   Wikipedia

  • Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex ArgueDate=January 17 ArgueYear=1979 DecideDate=May 29 DecideYear=1979 FullName=Greenholtz, Chairman, Board of Parole of Nebraska et al. v. Inmates of the… …   Wikipedia

  • Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution — United States of America …   Wikipedia

  • Code of Federal Regulations — Administrative law General prin …   Wikipedia

  • Hamdi v. Rumsfeld — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ArgueDate=April 28 ArgueYear=2004 DecideDate=June 28 DecideYear=2004 FullName=Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi as next friend of Yaser Esam Hamdi, Petitioners v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense …   Wikipedia

  • United States administrative law — encompasses a number of statutes and cases which define the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States Government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal… …   Wikipedia

  • National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services — Supreme Court of the United States …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”