In conformity with state law, New York welfare officials terminated the public assistance of a recipient, with notice that the action could be challenged in a posttermination hearing. By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court held that a recipient must have the right to a pretermination hearing. Although not requiring the hearing to be a formal judicial proceeding, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.’sBrennan, William J., Jr.;Goldberg v. Kelly[Goldberg v. Kelly] majority opinion did specify that the recipient must be allowed to confront witnesses, to retain a lawyer, and to bring oral evidence before an impartial official. Brennan reasoned that a statutory entitlement to welfare was a form of property that helped poor people to survive and participate in the life of the community.Due process, procedural;Goldberg v. Kelly[Goldberg v. Kelly]

In subsequent decisions, the Court expanded the Goldberg principle to related situations. In Gross v. Lopez[case]Gross v. Lopez[Gross v. Lopez] (1975), for example, the Court held that suspension of students from public schools constituted deprivation of property within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Mathews v. Eldridge[case]Mathews v. Eldridge[Mathews v. Eldridge] (1976), however, the Court shifted toward a balancing test when it approved of a policy of not providing opportunity for a hearing for recipients of Social Security disability payments before termination of benefits.

Due process, procedural

Fourteenth Amendment

Property rights