Filed Date: 1968
Closed Date: March 23, 1970
Clearinghouse coding complete
Under the Due Process Clause, the government may not deprive persons of "property" without due process of law. This is the Supreme Court case that recognized as "property" not only items traditionally considered property (money, real estate, etc.), but interests conferred by the government, such as welfare. As a result, termination of welfare requires due process of law.
In 1968, plaintiffs brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs were residents of New 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. 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. At the time 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 the suits were brought, and Plaintiffs then challenged the constitutional adequacy of those procedures. Defendants in the suit were the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, the State Board of Social Welfare and the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services.
On November 26, 1968, a three-judge district court ruled for the plaintiffs. In an opinion by Court of Appeals Judge Wilfred Feinberg, the three-judge district court held that a pre-termination hearing for welfare recipients is constitutionally required and that the procedures set forth for such hearing are the constitutional minimum. Kelly v. Wyman, 294 F. Supp. 893 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)
Because the case was decided by a three-judge district court, the city was entitled to direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 23, 1970, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision. In a majority opinion by Justice William Brennan, the Court held that the due process clause requires a pre-termination evidentiary hearing when public assistance payments to welfare recipient are discontinued, and further held that procedures followed by New York City in terminating public assistance payments to welfare recipients were constitutionally inadequate, because they failed to permit recipients to appear personally (with or without counsel) before the official adjudicating eligibility, and failed to permit the recipient to present evidence orally, or to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
Three dissenting opinions were filed, by Justice Hugo Black, Justice Potter Stewart, and Chief Justice Warren Burger.
Summary Authors
Xin Chen (6/8/2011)
Black, Hugo Lafayette (District of Columbia)
Albert, Lee A. (New York)
Antler, Steven J. (California)
Barrack, Shyleur (New York)
Borsody, Robert (New York)
Black, Hugo Lafayette (District of Columbia)
Brennan, William Joseph Jr. (District of Columbia)
Bryan, Frederick van Pelt (New York)
Burger, Warren Earl (District of Columbia)
Feinberg, Wilfred (New York)
Hamlin, Oliver Deveta Jr. (California)
McLean, Edward Cochrane (New York)
Wollenberg, Albert Charles (California)
Zirpoli, Alfonso Joseph (California)
Last updated April 19, 2024, 3:02 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Key Dates
Filing Date: 1968
Closing Date: March 23, 1970
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are New York City welfare recipients; they claim that the procedures for termination of welfare benefits deny due process and violate both the Social Security Act and regulations of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Outcome: Unknown
Defendants
the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, State
the State Board of Social Welfare, State
the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, City
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)