Wallberg Commissioner Of Social Services Of The City Of New York V. Goldberg Case Study
Case: Goldberg, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York v. Kelly et al. (1970)
Facts: This case was a class action lawsuit brought brought by residents of New York City against the commissioner (Goldberg) of the Department of Social Services (DSS) and state officials of DSS. These residents were receiving financial support from the city in the form of the federally funded Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and/or the general Home Relief program of New York State. In other words, these programs offered money for families through AFDC, and subsidized housing or allowed for individuals to keep their homes through the Home Relief program. The aid given to these families were being terminated without prior notice and …show more content…
The changes being that the recipients must be given notice seven days prior to the discontinuance/suspension of funds are put into effect, and the recipient is given time to submit a written statement (if they so choose) with reasons as to why their funds should not be discontinued or suspended. The recipients record is reviewed and if termination is confirmed, their funds are immediately ceased. The recipient is informed that they have a chance to request a “fair hearing” after the termination of their aid, however, the plaintiffs did not agree with the post-termination hearing and believed it to be in violation of their right to due process. After a decision was made in District Court, and although the defendants were …show more content…
As Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court, he quoted the district court saying “...to cut off a welfare recipient in the face of…’brutal need’ without prior hearing of some sort is unscionable…”. That is to say, if a recipient’s public assistance is terminated and determination of eligibility is ongoing and unresolved, the recipient is being deprived of “the means by which to live” while he/she waits for a resolution. Which means families are no longer receiving financial support, and the benefits families were obtaining to stay in their homes or to continue paying for their homes, are no longer being given. Furthermore, according to the majority’s reasoning, public assistance is a right. The 14th Amendment states that “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law...”; and that is what public assistance is, property. There is such a ‘brutal need’ for the aid and people will be extremely affected if removed, that it can no longer be considered a privilege but a property right. Therefore, the recipients need for continuous benefits, outweigh the State’s interest in preserving the public
Facts: This case was a class action lawsuit brought brought by residents of New York City against the commissioner (Goldberg) of the Department of Social Services (DSS) and state officials of DSS. These residents were receiving financial support from the city in the form of the federally funded Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and/or the general Home Relief program of New York State. In other words, these programs offered money for families through AFDC, and subsidized housing or allowed for individuals to keep their homes through the Home Relief program. The aid given to these families were being terminated without prior notice and …show more content…
The changes being that the recipients must be given notice seven days prior to the discontinuance/suspension of funds are put into effect, and the recipient is given time to submit a written statement (if they so choose) with reasons as to why their funds should not be discontinued or suspended. The recipients record is reviewed and if termination is confirmed, their funds are immediately ceased. The recipient is informed that they have a chance to request a “fair hearing” after the termination of their aid, however, the plaintiffs did not agree with the post-termination hearing and believed it to be in violation of their right to due process. After a decision was made in District Court, and although the defendants were …show more content…
As Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court, he quoted the district court saying “...to cut off a welfare recipient in the face of…’brutal need’ without prior hearing of some sort is unscionable…”. That is to say, if a recipient’s public assistance is terminated and determination of eligibility is ongoing and unresolved, the recipient is being deprived of “the means by which to live” while he/she waits for a resolution. Which means families are no longer receiving financial support, and the benefits families were obtaining to stay in their homes or to continue paying for their homes, are no longer being given. Furthermore, according to the majority’s reasoning, public assistance is a right. The 14th Amendment states that “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law...”; and that is what public assistance is, property. There is such a ‘brutal need’ for the aid and people will be extremely affected if removed, that it can no longer be considered a privilege but a property right. Therefore, the recipients need for continuous benefits, outweigh the State’s interest in preserving the public