Mathews v. Eldridge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathews v. Eldridge, , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that individuals have a staturily granted property right in social security benefits, that the termination of those benefits implicates due process, but that the termination of Social Security benefits does not require a pre-termination hearing. The case is important in the development of American administrative law.
[edit] Legal principles
In determining the amount of process due, the court should weigh three factors:
- The interests of the individual in retaining their property, and the injury threatened by the official action
- The costs and administrative burden of the additional process, and the interests of the government in efficient adjudication
- The risk of error through the procedures used and probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;
Social security benefits are a statutorily created property right implicating due process.
Termination of social security benefits does not require a pre-termination hearing.
[edit] Facts and procedural posture
The SSA terminated Eldridge's social security benefits through 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.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no pre-termination hearing was required.
