Goldberg v. Kelly
- Decided
- May 4, 1970
- Docket
- 62
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,926 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute, overruled (not yet verified) · Malis v. Hills
What later courts said
- holding that procedural due process requires that evidentiary hearing be held before public assistance payments to welfare recipients are terminated — Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, Inc. (1998)
- holding that welfare benefits may not be taken away without giving the recipient notice and an opportunity to be heard — Pro-Eco, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners of Jay County, Indiana (1995)
- holding that written objections to the deprivation of welfare benefits did not provide uneducated and unrepresented welfare recipients with an adequate opportunity to be heard — Francine M. Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Company and Colgate Palmolive S.A. De C.V. (1999)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether a State that terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This action was brought in the District Court for the Southern District of New York by residents of New [*256] York City receiving financial aid under the federally assisted program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or under New York State’s general Home Relief program.[1] Their complaint alleged that the New York State and New York City officials administering these programs terminated, or were about to terminate, such aid without prior notice and hearing, thereby denying them due process of law.[2] At the time [*257] the suits were filed there was no requirement of prior notice or hearing of any kind before termination of financial aid. However, the State and city adopted procedures for notice and hearing after tho suits were brought, and the plaintiffs, appellees here, then challenged the constitutional adequacy of those procedures.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.