397 U.S. 254 (1970)
Residents of New York City receiving financial aid under the federally assisted program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or under New York State's general Home Relief program brought this action in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against the state and city officials who administered those programs.1
At the time the suits were filed, New York had no requirement of prior notice or hearing of any kind before termination of financial aid.2 The suits prompted the State Commissioner of Social Services to amend the Department of Social Services regulations.3
The amendment required local officials proposing to discontinue or suspend a recipient's aid to follow either subdivision (a) or subdivision (b) of § 351.26.4 The City of New York elected to follow subdivision (b).5 It promulgated Procedure No. 68-18.6
Under that procedure a caseworker who doubts a recipient's continued eligibility first discusses the doubts with the recipient. The caseworker then recommends termination to a unit supervisor. If the supervisor concurs, the recipient receives a letter stating the reasons for the proposed termination and notifying the recipient that within seven days he may request review by a higher official and may submit a written statement.7
The reviewing official decides whether to discontinue aid. Aid stops immediately upon affirmation, and the recipient is notified in writing of the reasons.8 The city's procedure contains no provision for the recipient's personal appearance before the reviewing official, for oral presentation of evidence, or for confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses.9
The letter sent to the recipient states that he may request a post-termination fair hearing before an independent state hearing officer. At the hearing the recipient may appear personally, offer oral evidence, confront and cross-examine witnesses, and have a record made. If the recipient prevails, all funds erroneously withheld are paid.10 A recipient whose aid is not restored after the fair hearing may obtain judicial review under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.11
The District Court held that only a pre-termination evidentiary hearing would satisfy due process. The court rejected the argument that the combination of the post-termination fair hearing and the informal pre-termination review was constitutionally adequate.12 Only the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York appealed.13 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1969.14
Whether a State that terminates public assistance payments to a particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to termination denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?15
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the termination of welfare benefits because such benefits constitute a statutory entitlement for qualified recipients rather than a mere privilege.16 Termination of those benefits involves state action adjudicating important rights, and the recipient's interest in avoiding grievous loss must be weighed against the government's interest in summary adjudication.17 When termination may deprive an eligible recipient of the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care, only a pre-termination evidentiary hearing satisfies procedural due process.18
Yes. The New York City residents received AFDC or Home Relief benefits that supplied the means to obtain essential food, clothing, housing, and medical care.19 Under Procedure No. 68-18 the city provided only written notice and an opportunity to submit a written statement for review by a higher official, with no personal appearance, oral evidence, or confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses before aid stopped.20 The letter informed recipients that they could request a post-termination fair hearing, which occurred only after payments had already ended and left recipients without resources during the interim.21
These facts demonstrate that the city's informal pre-termination review failed to afford an evidentiary hearing at a meaningful time, and the District Court therefore correctly concluded that the procedure denied due process.22
A State denies a recipient procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment when it terminates public assistance payments without first affording an evidentiary hearing.23
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Black dissented on the ground that the majority improperly transformed the Due Process Clause into a vehicle for judicial policy making rather than adhering to the constitutional text.24 He maintained that welfare payments are gratuities, not property, and that the Constitution contains no provision requiring the government to continue payments to persons it believes are ineligible pending a full evidentiary hearing.25 Black further argued that the decision would ultimately injure the poor by prompting states to conduct exhaustive pre-grant investigations that delay or prevent eligible persons from ever receiving aid.26