110 likes | 513 Views
Procedural Due Process - What process is due?. Goldberg’s 2 critical requirements of due process: Notice Pre-deprivation opportunity to be heard Procedures determined by weighing state/P’s interests To what extent has SCT refined it’s approach since Goldberg ?. Mathews v. Eldridge.
E N D
Procedural Due Process - What process is due? • Goldberg’s 2 critical requirements of due process: • Notice • Pre-deprivation opportunity to be heard Procedures determined by weighing state/P’s interests • To what extent has SCT refined it’s approach since Goldberg?
Mathews v. Eldridge • Eldridge received disability benefits under federal law (Social Security Act) during a period in which he was unable to work due to injury/illness. (1968-72) • After 4 years, SSA determined that Eldridge was no longer eligible for disability benefits and that his benefits were to be suspended. He was informed according to then-existing procedures. • Eldridge sued for due process violations. DCT/CTA agreed that he did not receive adequate process before disability benefits were terminated. They determined that he was entitled to an adversarial hearing under Goldberg v. Kelly. • Supreme Court reversed – existing procedures did not violate the Constitution.
Agency procedures during termination process in Eldridge: • Questionnaire to recipients • Agency obtains info from sources of medical treatment • Agency tentatively determines to terminate and informs beneficiary by letter • Beneficiary is given reasons, summary of the evidence, opportunity to review file/to respond in writing/submit additional evidence • Agency makes final determination which is reviewed by SSA examiner • SSA notifies beneficiary in writing of termination – gives reasons & informs beneficiary of right to seek de novo reconsideration by the state agency • After state agency reconsideration, beneficiary is notified if benefits remain terminated • Beneficiary then has a right to a non-adversarial evidentiary hearing without counsel before an SSA ALJ • If that hearing results in an adverse decision to the beneficiary, he may request discretionary review by the SSA Appeals council and, finally, judicial review
Mathews v. Eldridge – SCT’s 3-factor balancing test for determining process due • What is the private interest affected by the termination? • Continued disability benefits until final administrative decision • Not as significant as AFDC benefits but not insignificant (note Brennan) disagreement) • Determine importance by magnitude & length of deprivation • What is the risk of erroneous deprivation if current procedures are used and what is the utility of additional safeguards? • Current procedures are pretty good safeguards against mistakes & appropriately tailored for THESE beneficiaries who aren’t in the same position as AFDC beneficiaries • Additional procedures (oral presentation . . . ) would add little • What is the government’s interest? • Conserving fiscal/admin resources (specifically increased cost of paying out undeserved benefits while others who need aren’t getting them weighed against cost of holding more hearings)
Models of Due Process Hearing Requirements • Goldberg relied on an “adjudicative” model requiring a formal hearing before deprivation could occur. • Matthews moved away from that model: • “The judicial model of an evidentiary hearing is neither a required, nor even the most effective, method of decision-making in all circumstances. . . . All that is necessary is that the procedures be tailored, in light of the decision to be made, to ‘the capacities and circumstances of those who are to be heard,” . . . to insure that they are given meaningful opportunity to present their case.” • SCT now approves pre-deprivation “hearings” that allow only written appearances or informal consultations if they think that such hearings fit “the capacities & circumstances of those who are to be heard” and if the overall balance of Eldridge factors warrants such procedures.
The Basic Requirements of Due Process – a summary: • The 2 critical requirements of due process are: • Notice – more in a minute • Pre-deprivation opportunity to be heard – with some exceptions • Oppt’y to be heard can take many forms – consultative meeting with officials, written appeal after access to evidence, oral hearing w/ informal testimony, oral hearing w/ more formal requirements • Form required depends on how the Eldridge factors balance in a particular case. • Process required increases as the balance tips in favor of the private interest (Goldberg) • Nature of existing procedures & post-deprivation procedures affects whether due process is satisfied (Eldridge)
Some Clean-Up Issues • Notice • Must be adequate re timing – i.e., provides enough time for P to prepare opportunity to be heard – case-by-case determination re adequacy • Must be adequate re to whom directed – objective test • Is the method of notification “reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to provide actual notice to the person(s) whose rights are being adjudicated?” • Pre-deprivation opportunity to be heard – emergency exception • If holding a hearing would endanger public health or is unrealistic due to some other emergency, then pre-deprivation hearing is unnecessary • Post-deprivation hearing still required • Note – if it’s possible to have even the most truncated of pre-deprivation hearings, though, it’s probably better to do so as a pragmatic matter – especially if that’s what procedures contemplate anyway
What is a deprivation of a protected interest? • Paul v. Davis & Ingraham v. Wright – availability of common law remedies for gov’t wrong alleviates need for pre-deprivation hearing • Availability of suit for tortious wrongdoing (negligence/libel) for gov’t action meant that gov’t officials could paddle/post stigmatic comments about individual w/out hearing • BUT it’s rarely the case that a court will hold that availability of a common law suit for damages/injunction REALLY means that a prior hearing is unnecessary if gov’t actually deprives an individual of a property interest • Example – gov’t cuts of your utility access without notice or informal hearing (i.e., contact us in writing by this date . . .) • What’s really at issue in cases like Paul & Ingraham: • Random, negligent acts & general defamatory comments simply don’t amount to a “deprivation” for purposes of due process analysis • Also – gov’t actors random failure to follow established procedures are not a “deprivation” and can be dealt with by common law remedies