Part II. Initiating Process and Politics of Participation 10 Pleadings/Subject Matter Jurisdiction10 Choice of Law (Erie) 13 Summons and Complaint (Rule 4) 20 Who can Bring a lawsuit? 21 Financing Litigation (Alyeska/Galanter Thesis) 23
Part III. Strategic Interactions 25 Preliminary Actions (Rules 64-65)25 Personal Jurisdiction 31 Defendant’s Response (Rule 12)39 Discovery 42
Part IV. Allocating Decision-making Power50 The Jury Trial Right 50 Burden of Proof 53
Introduction: The Values of Process Goldberg v. Kelly
FACTS: Plaintiff (Kelly) sued the state of NY for terminating welfare benefits without prior hearing. NY state process for terminating benefits happened after approval from superiors and before an in-person evidentiary hearing.
ISSUE: Whether a state that terminates public assistance payments without an evidentiary hearing prior to termination denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
HOLDING: (Brennan) Yes it is a denial of due process.
The state must provide an evidentiary hearing before termination of benefits.
Recipients a must be able to consult with counsel, present evidence orally, and confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
Counsel need not be provided at pre-termination hearing
Decision-maker's conclusion as to a recipient's eligibility must rest solely on the legal rules and evidence adduced at the hearing and must be impartial.
SIGNIFICANCE: Due Process Clause protects right to hearing before deprivation of welfare benefits.
Both the Court and the Litigants focused ONLY on Kelly’s right to property (welfare) and not the right to a minimal condition of life.
Defendant, Goldberg, did not question that it was a property interest because Goldberg was interested in the system being reformed. Black’s dissent in Goldberg questions welfare benefits being considered property.
The Bitter with the Sweet argument: If the State creates the entitlement why can the legislature not also condition it on procedures short of due process?
This wouldn’t be an issue if the court had decided this was a liberty issue.
The Court, by defining welfare as property, could rule that welfare is not a right because it is a political obligation so it can be taken away as long as the correct process is used. Due process is a pre-political right.
Political obligation: something the political process can decide to give you.
Pre-political obligation/right: something the political process cannot tamper with- ex. free speech
Government aid is a privilege, not a right.
Separation of powers – this is too close to legislative policy-making
Anti-domocratic. The judges do not have enough democratic accountability.
Judges are not well trained to make policy like this.
Values of extra procedure in Goldberg
Utilitarian - Posner Approach (centers on economic) has been applied in Eldridge and become part of con law.
O’Connor applies this approach to terrorism
Goldberg – Once you hold that gov’t entitlement is property interest, you can throw in utilitarian approach.
Libertarian approach [ala Mill] that individual will be protected.
Note: Mrs. G. Article (Lucy White) – can’t assume that an in-person hearing will ensure that individual rights are actually protected – phenomenology of the hearing is not one in which dignity of individual will be protected.
Link to dignitary values
(Michaelmen) idea that losing is more legitimate if you can participate.
Truth – truth is a result of procedural process (think about Olympic medal addition mistake). Constructed truth from procedure is the real truth. (Ani’s)
Rule of Law
(Fuller) Transparency of legal results
we can rely on them (reasonably predictably applied)
objective (applied across the board)
Mathews v. Eldridge
Eldridge is receiving payments for diabetes, back pain and anxiety.
Receipt is a dynamic process under re-examination – he must continually redemonstrate need
Eldridge must appeal to mixture of state and federal agents.
Eldridge is asking for a matter of Const. requirement that HEW people owe a process that doesn’t terminate benefits until ALJ hearing
Holding (Powell): The procedure outlined does not violate due process clause.
Goldberg v. Kelly as precedent – reasoning is central, even though on the surface it seems to be an opposite holding.
Powell takes Goldberg as standard, and says that inquiry in case will give us a different result in Mathews.
Three factor test (mechanistic method):
Private interest affected
Risk of erroneous deprivation/value of additional procedure for prevention (*** New Factor***)
Government’s interest in keeping costs down
Differentiates situation from Godlberg:
Difference between disability and welfare
people have some liquid assets and income welfare people don’t have.