GET ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
100% UNIQUE SOLUTION WITHIN FEW HOURS
Create a 3 pages page paper that discusses case brief. Case Brief - MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE, 424 US 319 (1976) AND CITATION The case i.e. MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE, 424 US 319 (1976) is a proceeding of Supreme Court, related to the termination of benefits linked with social security of Mr. George Eldridge on his disability. The petitioner in this case was Mr. F. David Mathews, while the defendant was Mr. George Eldridge (OYEZ, “Mathews v. Eldridge”. Legal Information Institute, “Powell, J., Opinion of the Court”). FACTS OF THE CASE MATHEWS v. ELDRIDGE, 424 US 319 (1976) is a litigation of the Supreme Court of the United States, which is related with securing the social benefits of the US citizens. The case is provided with much significance in the development of administrative law in the United States. In this case, Social Security Administration (SSA) terminated the social security related benefits of George Eldridge with normal procedure without a termination proceeding. Following this, Eldridge challenges this decision of SSA and demanded for a hearing before the termination of his social rights (Legal Information Institute, “Powell, J., Opinion of the Court”). ISSUES The main issues highlighted in the case is the decision of SSA to terminate the social security rights of the respondent i.e. Eldridge. The petition was filed by F. David Mathews in SSA to terminate the rights of the respondent. It would be vital to mention that according to ‘SI 02301.300’ of the Due Process Protections, the social security rights of a citizen can be terminated with a mere advance notice provided at the time of ending of the disability. In this case too, Eldridge was informed with a notice regarding the ending of the disability status, leading towards the termination of his social security (Legal Information Institute, “Powell, J., Opinion of the Court”). DECISIONS (HOLDINGS) The court decided that an evidentiary hearing is not mandatory while executing the termination of Social Security disability of any citizen. Moreover, the approach of SSA regarding termination of rights of Eldridge with a provided notice is fully justified and it complies with ‘Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment’ (Legal Information Institute, “Powell, J., Opinion of the Court”). REASONING The decision of the court depicted that due process is a flexible legislation and it can be applied in accordance with the demand of the situation like in the case of [Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481]. The court also affirmed that decision on seizure of social security on disability of Eldridge was made with due consideration of the medical reports acquired from the physicians [424 U.S. 319, 322] (Legal Information Institute, “Powell, J., Opinion of the Court”). SEPARATE OPINIONS The decision of the court was divided into two sections, one headed by Justice Powell who delivered the judgment for the case. Powell stated that a violation of the ‘due process clause’ did not take place in this particular case. He was supported by five other panel members including Burger, C. J., Stewart, White, Blackmun, and Rehnquist, JJ who had similar kind of opinion with regard to the case. On the opposing side of this decision, the duo of Brennan, J. and Marshall, J believed that Eldridge should have received an evidentiary hearing [424 U.S. 319, 350] prior to the termination of his general security rights on disability (Legal Information Institute, “Powell, J., Opinion of the Court”). ANALYSIS The decision of the court apparently depicted that the ‘due process clause’ was not violated in the previous decisions. The decision also signified that ‘due process clause’ is quite flexible and can be used accordingly depending on the demands of the situations. It can be also be depicted from the analysis of the case that the decision was quite vital with regard to the development of Administrative law in America and to be used as a case reference in future litigations. However, presenting a contrasting viewpoint, it can be affirmed that an evidentiary hearing could have been awarded prior to the termination of Eldridge’s general disability rights (Legal Information Institute, “Powell, J., Opinion of the Court”). SUMMARY OF THE OPINION In this case, Solicitor General Bork argued for the cause of Mr. F. David Mathews. Bork emphasized the factors of the post termination procedures available to Eldridge. Bork illustrated that Eldridge was availed with the right of having an evidentiary hearing, but he rather choose to file a suit against the secretary of SSA. Bork also argued that if Eldridge was continued to be paid for his disability until the evidentiary hearing was made, then huge money would be needed to be invested, which would have been quite inappropriate. Bork also made a point that the entire decision made on termination of the security rights was taken with due consideration of all the medical reports of Eldridge. The panel of justice argued at this point about the validity of the medical reports as they were not shown to Eldridge. Bork explained about how in medical sector, reports are not directly shown to patients. In this regard, Bork used [Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 404] as a case reference. Throughout the argument, Bork seemed to be quite comfortable in clarifying the doubts of the justice panel, owing to which he was deemed to be in a dominant position while proceedings. The information presented by Bork made certain that the entire process of terminating the disability rights of Bork was conducted in the right procedure, thereby raising the curtain over the issues of violation of due process which was also the primary issue in the case. Hence, through the analysis of the proceeding, a comprehensive answer was derived regarding the question of justice of whether due process was violated or not in this case (OYEZ, “Mathews v. Eldridge). Works Cited “Powell, J., Opinion of the Court.” Legal Information Institute. n.d. Web. 27 Oct, 2013. “Mathews v. Eldridge.” OYEZ. 2011. Web. 27 Oct, 2013.
100% UNIQUE SOLUTION WITHIN FEW HOURS