Court Opinion

ID: 9805412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 17:53:53.158011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:45:05.961965
License: Public Domain

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 *281of 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*282ever, 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 *282a 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.”