Goldberg v. Kelly

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
62
Appellee: 
Kelly
Appellant: 
Goldberg
Decided By: 
Burger Court (1969-1970)
Opinion: 
397 U.S. 254 (1970)
Categories: 
right to counsel, right to a hearing, welfare benefits

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Goldberg v. Kelly , 397 U.S. 254 (1970)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_62)
Facts of the Case: 

John Kelly, acting on behalf of New York residents receiving financial assistance either under the federally-assisted program for Families with Dependent Children or under New York State's home relief program, challenged the constitutionality of procedures for notice and termination of such aid. Although originally offering no official notice or opportunity for hearings to those whose aid was scheduled for termination, the State of New York implemented a hearing procedure after commencement of Kelly's litigation.

Question: 

Does a state's termination of public aid, without affording the beneficiary a hearing prior to termination, violate notions of procedural due process as set out in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?

Conclusion: 

Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that states must afford public aid recipients a pre-termination evidentiary hearing before discontinuing their aid. Noting that welfare benefits are statutory entitlements, rather than "privileges," the Court weighed welfare recipients' need for procedural due process against the competing considerations of the possible harm they might suffer from discontinuation and the government's interest in summary adjudication. The Court concluded that state interests in conserving administrative costs are not sufficient to override public aid recipients' interest in procedural due process. With respect to New York's newly implemented hearings, the Court found them deficient insofar as they did not permit recipients to present evidence, be heard orally in person or through counsel, or cross-examine adverse witnesses.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Kelly, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

Sort by Seniority

Voted with the majority
Douglas
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Wrote the majority opinion
Brennan
Wrote a dissent, joined Burger's dissent
Black
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote a dissent
Stewart
Voted with the majority
Harlan
Wrote a dissent
Burger

Full Opinion by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.