COURT CASES: Goldberg v. Kelly and Mathews v. Eldridge
In this case of Goldberg v. Kelly we have an issue that discusses the termination of welfare to a recipient. Now what seems to be the issue here is that there used to be no federal or state law on how to regulate this and enforce this but only a procedure that the New York State's general Home Relief program adopted to use and follow. The sole issue of the problem is accepting the fact that a person with life depending needs could lose their financial aid and determining just exactly how those procedures should be carried out and exactly what they will be. The Home Relief program adopted a procedure that notifies the person to be terminated from the financial aid funds a minimum of 7 days before it can be enforced. The recipient is then allowed to request a higher official examine their case and is allowed to meet with that caseworker to be presented the evidence on why they are being terminated from the system. The only option that the welfare recipient have is to write a personal letter or one assisted by an attorney and request that a higher supervisor take look at their case. The recipient has the right to request a fair hearing after all of this and is then allowed to present their arguments orally and cross examine the witnesses against him/her. If the recipient prevails at the hearing his is then awarded all his held funds that were being held. This is where the argument comes in as to whether the recipient should be awarded the right to a fair trial before the termination that takes effect after a quick 7 days. As I had stated before the main issue at thought is assuming these recipients rely on these funds and should not lose the right to these funds without a fair trial.
Since these fair hearings will cost the state more money, the state is allowed to have it's legal weapons to save itself from higher costs, the welfare system is considered property rather than gratuity and must be protected...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document