Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Goldberg v. Kelly Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1970Docket #1126101
25 L. Ed. 2d 287 90 S. Ct. 1011 397 U.S. 254 1970 U.S. LEXIS 80 Constitutional Law Administrative Law Poverty Law Civil Procedure

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires a state to provide an evidentiary hearing before terminating welfare benefits, establishing that such benefits are a statutory entitlement akin to property, not a mere privilege.

Legal Significance: This case established that statutory entitlements, like welfare benefits, are a form of “new property” protected by procedural due process and created a balancing test to determine the specific pre-deprivation procedures required, significantly expanding the scope of the Due Process Clause.

Goldberg v. Kelly Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

New York City residents receiving financial aid under federal (AFDC) and state (Home Relief) programs challenged the constitutionality of the procedures for terminating their benefits. The city’s procedure provided recipients with seven days’ notice and the reasons for the proposed termination. Recipients could submit a written statement to a reviewing official, but they were not permitted to appear in person, present evidence orally, or confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses before their aid was cut off. A formal post-termination “fair hearing” was available, and if the recipient prevailed, they would receive all funds erroneously withheld. The recipients argued that the lack of a pre-termination evidentiary hearing violated their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, contending that the termination of benefits, which they depended on for basic subsistence, constituted a “grievous loss” requiring more robust procedural safeguards before the deprivation occurred.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that a recipient of public assistance benefits be afforded an evidentiary hearing before those benefits are terminated?

Yes. The Court held that procedural due process requires a pre-termination evidentiary Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est labo

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that a recipient of public assistance benefits be afforded an evidentiary hearing before those benefits are terminated?

Conclusion

Goldberg v. Kelly represents the high-water mark of procedural due process, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ul

Legal Rule

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occ

Legal Analysis

The Court's analysis began by rejecting the traditional right-privilege distinction, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vol

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Holding: The Due Process Clause requires a state to provide an
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Success in law school is 10% intelligence and 90% persistence.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+