The Oyez Project: Civil Rights Issues - Poverty Law, Constitutional Decisions

Blum v. Bacon

No details yet.

Blum v. Yaretsky

No details yet.

Bowen v. Gilliard

No details yet.

Bowen v. Owens

No details yet.

Califano v. Aznavorian

No details yet.

Califano v. Jobst

No details yet.

Califano v. Westcott

No details yet.

Dandridge v. Williams

No details yet.

Edelman v. Jordan

No details yet.

Goldberg v. Kelly

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?

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.

Green v. Mansour

No details yet.

James v. Valtierra

No details yet.

Jefferson v. Hackney

No details yet.

Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools

No details yet.

Knebel v. Hein

No details yet.

Lavine v. Milne

No details yet.

Lyng v. Automobile Workers

No details yet.

Lyng v. Castillo

No details yet.

Mathews v. Eldridge

Did the lack of an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of disability benefits violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

No. In an 6-to-2 decision, the Court held that the initial termination of Eldridge's benefits without a hearing did not violate due process. The Court noted that due process was "flexible" and called for "such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." The Court found that there were numerous safeguards to prevents errors in making decisions to terminate disability benefits and argued that "[a]t some point the benefit or an additional safeguard to the individual affected by the administrative action and to society, in terms of increased assurance that the action is just, may be outweighed by the cost."

Montgomery v. Burns

No details yet.

Quern v. Jordan

No details yet.

Richardson v. Belcher

No details yet.

Robinson v. Johnson

No details yet.

San Antonio Independent School Dis. v. Rodriguez

Did Texas' public education finance system violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by failing to distribute funding equally among its school districts?

No. The Court refused to examine the system with strict scrutiny since there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution and since the system did not systematically discriminate against all poor people in Texas. Given the similarities between Texas' system and those in other states, it was clear to the Court that the funding scheme was not "so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory." Justice Powell argued that on the question of wealth and education, "the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages."

Schweiker v. Hogan

No details yet.

Schweiker v. Wilson

No details yet.

Townsend v. Swank

No details yet.

U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture v. Moreno

No details yet.

U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture v. Murry

No details yet.

U.S. Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz

No details yet.

Weinberger v. Salfi

No details yet.

Wheeler v. Montgomery

No details yet.

Wyman v. Rothstein

No details yet.

Zablocki v. Redhail

No details yet.