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.

Xin Chen - 06/08/2011


compress summary