Document: 397 U.S. 280 90 S.Ct. 1028 25 L.Ed.2d 307 Mae WHEELER et al., Appellants,v.John MONTGOMERY, Director of the State Department Social Welfare, al. Jack R. GOLDBERG, Commissioner Services City New York, Appellant, v. John KELLY Nos. 14, 62. Supreme Court United States March 23, 1970 Peter E. Sitkin, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. Elizabeth Palmer, appellees. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 This is a companion case to No. 62, Goldberg Kelly, 254, 1011, 287. It class action brought by all recipients old age benefits who are subject California welfare termination provisions. A three-judge District Northern held that procedure pre-termination review in cases satisfies requirements Due Process Clause, 296 F.Supp. 138 (1968), and we noted probable jurisdiction, 394 970, 89 1452, 22 751 (1969). requires notice recipient proposed discontinuance or suspension at least three days prior its effective date, together with reasons intended statement what information required reestablish eligibility, advice may meet his caseworker before terminated '(t)o discuss entire matter informally purposes clarification and, where possible, resolution,' assurance there will be 'prompt investigation' restoration payments 'as soon as eligibility' receive them.* The does not, however, afford an evidentiary hearing which he personally appear offer oral evidence confront cross-examine witnesses against him. In supra, decided today, procedural due process such discontinued suspended. Accordingly, judgment must reversed on authority Kelly. 2 Reversed. 3 Chief BURGER, whom BLACK joins, dissenting. 4 Although I agree large part BLACK's views ante, p. 1022, additional factors wish mention dissent from today's unwise precipitous constitutional holdings. 5 procedures administrative 'welfare' area relatively early stage development; HEW has already taken initiative promulgating regulations requiring AFDC continued until final decision after 'fair hearing' held.1 net effect would provide benefits. Indeed, go far beyond result reached today since they require given right appointed counsel,2 position expressly rejected majority. As majority notes, see 1014 n. 3, these scheduled take July 1970. Against this background am baffled why should engage 'legislating' via fiat when apparently reasonable been accomplished administratively. 6 That adopted suggests me ought hold heavy hand adjudication allow evolutionary processes various levels develop, their flexibility make adjustments without long delays. permit orderly development solutions, aided expert guidance available within federal agencies have overview problem 50 States. cannot accept—indeed reject—any notion government pays out billions dollars nearly nine million heartless, insensitive, indifferent legitimate needs poor. 7 Court's seems another manifestation now familiar constitutionalizing syndrome: once some presumed flaw observed, then eagerly accepts invitation find constitutionally 'rooted' remedy. If no provision explicit point, it seen 'implicit' commanded vague nebulous concept 'fairness.' can share impatience seek instant solutions; great temptation frame remedies seem fair mandated forthwith congressional calls careful extended study. thought too slow. But, however cumbersome glacial, Constitution contemplated. 8 not suggest administering Nation's complex programs reach courts, but wait more known about problems fashioning solutions rigidity holding. 9 By allowing administrators deal leave room if, example, found particular costly. history complexity followed judicial past 30 years possibility new layers protection become intolerable drain very funds earmarked food, clothing, other living essentials.3 10 Aside morass could well create, also cognizant legal precedent setting. holding raises intriguing possibilities concerning stages affect total sum assistance, even though might fall short complete termination. For embrace reductions denial increases opposed terminations, decisions initial applications requests special assistance? supplies distinguishable considerations leaves crucial questions unanswered. 11 STEWART, 12 question close one, do believe York follow terminating violative Constitution. See Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union McElroy, 367 886, 894—897, 81 1743, 1748—1750, 1230. * Public Manual, Reg. 44—325 (effective April 1, 1968). pertinent provisions regulation state: '.43 shall notified, writing, immediately upon being made withhold warrant usual delivery date less than mail *. county give reason including, if necessary, home call appropriate personnel. Every notification include: '.431 setting forth grounds therefor, information, any, needed eligibility. '.432 Assurance prompt investigation made; withheld eligibility it; withholding freely discussed so desires '.434 opportunity department, specified time, during time period exceed working days, last day one warrant, place specifically designated order enable '(a) To learn nature extent based; '(b) any explanation limited described *; '(c) resolution.' 45 CFR § 205.10, 34 Fed.Reg. 1144 220.25, 1356 Handbook, pt. IV, §§ 2300(d)(5), 6200—6400. We told, Los Angeles County alone employs 12,500 workers grants 500,000 people under programs. record reveal how many employees newly discovered 'due process' every whose fraud ineligibility those denied.

Category: 1