Mathews v. Eldridge
- Decided
- February 24, 1976
- Docket
- 74-204
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 16,859 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds (not yet verified) · Yi Sweeney, V. Wa State Office Of The Insurance Commissioner
What later courts said
- 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 — David Giordano v. City of New York, Howard Safir, Police Commissioner, New York City Police Department, Medical Board, Police Pension Fund, Article II (2001)
- holding that courts should balance the costs and benefits of procedural safeguards to determine whether the Due Process Clause requires them — Paladin Associates, Inc. v. Montana Power Company (2003)
- holding that the fundamental requirement of due process “is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” — Garcia v. City of Albuquerque (2000)
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 Powell delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that prior to the termination of Social Security disability benefit payments the recipient be afforded an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing.
I
Statutes cited
- 42 U.S.C. § 423
- 42 U.S.C. § 405
- 42 U.S.C. § 421
- 42 U.S.C. § 404
- 26 U.S.C. § 3101
- 42 U.S.C. § 401
- 28 U.S.C. § 1291
- 28 U.S.C. § 1257
- 28 U.S.C. § 1361
- 5 U.S.C. § 701
And 5 more sections cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)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.