Mathews v. Eldridge
Significance, Due Process Is Flexible, Hearing Should Come Before Termination Of Benefits, Impact
Forrest D. Mathews, U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
That an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of Social Security disability benefits is not a requirement of due process.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Robert H. Bork, U.S. Solicitor General
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Donald E. Earles
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White,
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall (John Paul Stevens did not participate)
Date of Decision
24 February 1976
The lack of an evidentiary hearing prior to cutting off George Eldridge's disability benefits did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
- Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886 (1961).
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971).
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).
- Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (1975).
- Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 199 (1977).
- Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, Vol 3. New York: Macmillan, 1986.
- Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo - Significance, Appeal Goes To The U.s. Supreme Court, "free Press" Refers To Press Only
- Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia - Significance, Rationality Of Mandatory Retirement, Not The Best Means . . . But Rational Means, Impact
- Mathews v. Eldridge - Significance
- Mathews v. Eldridge - Due Process Is Flexible
- Mathews v. Eldridge - Hearing Should Come Before Termination Of Benefits
- Mathews v. Eldridge - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias