Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court· 2/24/1976

Mathews v. Eldridge

Citations

  • 424 U.S. 319
  • 96 S. Ct. 893
  • 47 L. Ed. 2d 18
  • 1976 U.S. LEXIS 141
  • 41 Cal. Comp. Cases 920

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1976 United States Supreme Court case

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that individuals have a statutorily granted property right in Social Security benefits, and the termination of such benefits implicates due process but does not require a pre-termination hearing. The case is significant in the development of American administrative law .

Legal principles

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathews_v._Eldridge&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Legal principles")
]

Determining the constitutional sufficiency of administrative procedures, prior to the initial termination of benefits and pending review, requires consideration of 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.[1]

The Court determined that Social Security benefits are a statutorily-created property right and so implicate due process .[2]

However, after balancing the three factors, the Court ruled that the administrative procedures in place were constitutional and held that termination of Social Security benefits does not require a pre-termination hearing. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 347–349 (1976).

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathews_v._Eldridge&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Background")
]

The Social Security Administration terminated Eldridge's benefits by 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.

Decision

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathews_v._Eldridge&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Decision")
]

The Supreme Court reversed and held that pre-termination hearing was not required.

See also

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathews_v._Eldridge&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: See also")
]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathews_v._Eldridge&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: References")
]

  1. ↑ Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 903 (1976)
  2. ↑ Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 323, 96 S. Ct. 893, 897 (1976)

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathews_v._Eldridge&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: External links")
]

United States Fourteenth Amendment case law

Due Process Clause

Equal Protection Clause

United States administrative law

Concepts

Federal legislation

Regulations

Policies and manuals

Supreme Court decisions

Due Process

Judicial Review

Agency Action

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathews_v._Eldridge&oldid=1359597822 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

…

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the “specific dictates of due process” must be determined by weighing (1) “the private interest that will be affected by the official action”; (2
  • holding that courts should balance the costs and benefits of procedural safeguards to determine whether the Due Process Clause requires them
  • holding that the fundamental requirement of due process “is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner”
  • holding that due process does not require that a recipient of Social Security disability benefits be given a pretermination hearing
  • holding that an eviden-tiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of Social Security disability benefits
  • concluding that oral testimony is unnecessary when an assessment can be made through written documents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Powell, Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Brennan, Marshall, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9,901 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.