A

THE DUE-PROCESS REVOLUTION

The Case of Esther Lett

Esther Lett received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), government assistance that went largely to single-parent families in which the adult in the family did not have a job. In 1967 the state of New York cut off her assistance, claiming that she had worked without informing them. That violated the rules. But Lett had not worked in violation of the rules. She should not have been cut off from payments. She could ask for a hearing to challenge the decision, but in the meantime she and her children had to find whatever charity they could. Neighbors gave them food. Some of it was spoiled, and Lett and her children ended up in the hospital from food poisoning. Afterward she sued the welfare agency, and it reinvestigated her case and reinstated her.

Brutal Need and the AFDC Recipient

Legal-services attorneys who worked in the New York Mobilization for Youth (MFY) program were looking for ways to make the law work for the poor. They argued that because the people on AFDC needed the money so badly—because they were in "brutal need" of assistance—government agencies should not be able to cut off benefits without first providing a hearing. MFY attorneys put Lett's case together with twelve others and sued. The due-process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments says that no one shall "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." But what process is due? The attorneys argued that due process required that people be given hearings with a chance to present evidence before officials cut their welfare benefits off.

Some Kind of a Hearing

The Supreme Court agreed with the MFY attorneys in Goldberg v. Kelly (1970). The Court held that the receipt of welfare payments was a property right granted by the government, like a license to sell liquor or a defense contract. Therefore the government must grant the recipient a hearing before terminating that right. The court cited the "brutal need" of recipients in holding that the hearing must come before the benefits are cut off, since terminating the benefits before the hearing may "deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits." That case became the basis for others, heralding a due process revolution. The Supreme Court, however, worried about the administrative burden it might be imposing on agencies and in later cases tried to make the hearings more flexible. In Goss v. Lopez (1975) the Court decided that before being suspended from school for more than three days a student should be able to present his or her side to a school administrator. However, the Court emphasized that that hearing could be informal, just an administrator talking with the student. In Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) the Court decided that people on disability payments could ask for hearings after the benefits were cut off. The Court emphasized that only some kind of hearing must be involved and that the exact requirements depended on the situation.

Precedent and Application

The Supreme Court uses the ruling from cases in many different settings. A case about hearings in AFDC is useful to help decide a case about hearings in other government programs. In this way in the 1970s courts and attorneys brought thinking about due process from Lett to school students.