Page "Goldberg v. Kelly" Paragraph 25

Appellant does not contend that procedural due process is not applicable to the termination of welfare benefits.

Such benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.

Their termination involves state action that adjudicates important rights.

The constitutional challenge cannot be answered by an argument that public assistance benefits are " a ‘ privilege ,' and not a ' right.

'" Shapiro v. Thompson Relevant constitutional restraints apply as much to the withdrawal of public assistance benefits as to disqualification for unemployment compensation, Sherbert v. Verner or to denial of a tax exemption, Speiser v. Randall or to discharge from public employment, Slochower v. Board of Higher Education.

The extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be " condemned to suffer grievous loss ," Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath and depends upon whether the recipient's interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the governmental interest in summary adjudication.

Accordingly, as we said in Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy consideration of what procedures due process may require under any given set of circumstances must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved, as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action.