Connection lost
Server error
Mathews v. Eldridge Case Brief
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
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that terminating a recipient’s Social Security disability benefits without a prior evidentiary hearing does not violate due process. The Court established a flexible three-part test to determine what procedural protections are constitutionally required before the government deprives an individual of a property interest.
Legal Significance: This case established the seminal three-part balancing test for analyzing procedural due process claims. The Mathews test is the modern framework for determining the constitutional sufficiency of government procedures when depriving an individual of a life, liberty, or property interest.
Mathews v. Eldridge 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
Respondent Eldridge received Social Security disability benefits. A state agency, after reviewing medical reports, made a tentative determination that his disability had ceased. Eldridge was notified of this finding, provided with a summary of the evidence, and given an opportunity to submit a written response and additional information. He disputed the agency’s characterization of his condition in writing but was not afforded an in-person, evidentiary hearing. The agency made its determination final, and the Social Security Administration (SSA) terminated his benefits. The SSA notified Eldridge of his right to seek a full post-termination administrative review, including an evidentiary hearing. Instead of pursuing this administrative remedy, Eldridge filed suit in federal district court. He argued that the pre-termination procedures were constitutionally deficient under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he was not provided an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing before his benefits were cut off. The District Court and the Court of Appeals sided with Eldridge, holding that a pre-termination hearing was required. The government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment require that a recipient of Social Security disability benefits be afforded an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of those benefits?
No, an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of 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.
IRAC Legal Analysis
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 Fifth Amendment require that a recipient of Social Security disability benefits be afforded an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of those benefits?
Conclusion
This decision established a flexible, context-specific balancing test for procedural due process, 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 c
Legal Rule
To identify the specific dictates of due process, a court must consider 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
Legal Analysis
The Court applied its newly articulated three-factor balancing test to determine 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 e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Holding: An evidentiary hearing is not required before terminating Social Security