Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) (1970 Welfare, SCOTUS)
Legal Issues
The Facts
New York City terminated welfare benefits to John Kelly and others without providing a pre-termination hearing. Recipients argued that stopping payments before any hearing violated their due process rights. The city contended that post-termination review was sufficient.
The Issue
Whether welfare benefits are protected by the Due Process Clause such that recipients are entitled to a hearing before termination
The Rules
Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process
New property doctrine — government entitlements as protected interests
Mathews v. Eldridge balancing framework (foreshadowed)
The Application
The Court applied the due process balancing test to welfare benefits, treating them as a protected property interest under the Fourteenth Amendment despite their statutory origin, and weighing New York's administrative interest in terminating benefits promptly against Kelly's interest in receiving a hearing before losing subsistence-level income. The balance decisively favored the recipient because post-termination review, however fair and thorough, cannot remedy the irreparable harm of deprivation that has already occurred to someone dependent on those benefits for food and shelter. The Court thus held that the constitutional minimum for welfare termination must include a pre-termination hearing, establishing that procedural due process protections extend to government-conferred entitlements and that the gravity of the interest at stake—not just its formal legal category—determines what process is due.
The Conclusion
Court held 5-3 that due process requires a hearing before welfare termination. Justice Brennan wrote for the majority. Foundational new-property and due process precedent.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support