Case Name: WHEELER et al. v. MONTGOMERY, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-03-23
Citations: 397 U.S. 280
Docket Number: No. 14
Parties: WHEELER et al. v. MONTGOMERY, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.
Judges: Mr. Justice Black, for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in No. 62, Goldberg v. Kelly, ante, p. 271, dissents and would affirm the judgment below.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 397
Pages: 280–285

Head Matter:
WHEELER et al. v. MONTGOMERY, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.
No. 14.
Argued October 13, 1969
Decided March 23, 1970
Peter E. Sitkin argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Steven J. Antler and Charles Stephen Ralston.
Elizabeth Palmer, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Richard L. Mayers, Deputy Attorney General, Thomas M. O’Connor, and Raymond D. Williamson, Jr.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Ruckelshaus, and Robert V. Zener filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Thomas L. Fike filed a brief for the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County as amicus curiae.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to No. 62, Goldberg v. Kelly, ante, p. 254. It is a class action brought by all recipients of old age benefits who are subject to California welfare termination provisions. A three-judge District Court for the Northern District of California held that the California procedure for pre-termination review in welfare cases satisfies the requirements of the Due Process Clause, 296 F. Supp. 138 (1968), and we noted probable jurisdiction, 394 U. S. 970 (1969). This procedure requires notice to the recipient of the proposed discontinuance or suspension at least three days prior to its effective date, together with reasons for the intended action and a statement of what information or action is required to re-establish eligibility, advice that the recipient may meet his caseworker before his benefits are terminated "[t]o discuss the entire matter informally for purposes of clarification and, where possible, resolution," and assurance that there will be "prompt investigation" of the case and restoration of payments "as soon as there is eligibility" to receive them. The procedure does not, how ever, afford the recipient an evidentiary hearing at which he may personally appear to offer oral evidence and confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. In Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, decided today, we held that procedural due process requires such an evidentiary pre-termination hearing before welfare payments may be discontinued or suspended. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court must be and is reversed on the authority of Goldberg v. Kelly.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Black, for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in No. 62, Goldberg v. Kelly, ante, p. 271, dissents and would affirm the judgment below.
California State Department of Social Welfare, Public Social Services Manual, Reg. 44-325 (effective April 1, 1968). The pertinent provisions of the regulation state:
".43 . . . The recipient . . . shall be notified,, in writing, immediately upon the initial decision being made to withhold a warrant beyond its usual delivery date . . . and in no case less than three . . . mail delivery days prior to the usual delivery date of the warrant . The county shall give such notice as it has reason to believe will be effective including, if necessary, a home call by appropriate personnel. . . . Every notification shall include:
".431 A statement setting forth the proposed action and the grounds therefor, together with what information, if any, is needed or action required to reestablish eligibility .
".432 Assurance that prompt investigation is being made; that the withheld warrant will be delivered as soon as there is eligibility to receive it; and that the evidence or other information which brought about the withholding action will be freely discussed with the recipient . . . if he so desires .
".434 A statement that the recipient . . . may have the opportunity to meet with his caseworker . in the county department, at a specified time, or during a given time period which shall not exceed three . . . working days, and the last day of which shall be at least one . . . day prior to the usual delivery date of the warrant, and at a place specifically designated in order to enable the recipient . . .
"(a) To learn the nature and extent of the information on which the withholding action is based;
"(b) To provide any explanation or information, including, but not limited to that described in the notification . . . ;
"(c) To discuss the entire matter informally for purposes of clarification and, where possible, resolution."