Mathews v. Eldridge
E54707
Mathews v. Eldridge is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a three-factor balancing test for determining what procedural safeguards due process requires in administrative proceedings.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Mathews v. Eldridge canonical | 4 |
| Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T434625 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Mathews v. Eldridge Context triple: [Due Process Clause, interpretedInCase, Mathews v. Eldridge]
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert v. Verner is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that strengthened protections for religious liberty by requiring strict scrutiny of government actions that substantially burden individuals’ religious practices.
-
E.
Hines v. Davidowitz
Hines v. Davidowitz is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal law preempts conflicting state alien-registration laws under the Supremacy Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Mathews v. Eldridge Target entity description: Mathews v. Eldridge is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a three-factor balancing test for determining what procedural safeguards due process requires in administrative proceedings.
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
C.
Milliken v. Bradley
Milliken v. Bradley is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of school desegregation remedies by ruling that courts could not impose cross-district busing plans absent proof of interdistrict segregation.
-
D.
Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert v. Verner is a landmark 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that strengthened protections for religious liberty by requiring strict scrutiny of government actions that substantially burden individuals’ religious practices.
-
E.
Hines v. Davidowitz
Hines v. Davidowitz is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal law preempts conflicting state alien-registration laws under the Supremacy Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
due process case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| announcedTest | three-factor balancing test for procedural due process in administrative proceedings ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
administrative hearings
ⓘ
government benefit termination procedures ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
administrative law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ |
| balancingFactor |
the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail
ⓘ
the private interest that will be affected by the official action ⓘ the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards ⓘ the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used ⓘ |
| citation | 424 U.S. 319 ⓘ |
| citedBy |
Goldberg v. Kelly
ⓘ
surface form:
Goldberg v. Kelly (distinguished)
|
| clarified | scope of due process protections for disability benefit recipients ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Due Process Clause
ⓘ
surface form:
Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1976 ⓘ |
| determinedThat | written procedures and post-termination hearings could satisfy due process in disability benefit terminations ⓘ |
| distinguishedFrom | Goldberg v. Kelly ⓘ |
| established | Mathews balancing test ⓘ |
| fullName |
Mathews v. Eldridge
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)
|
| holding |
Due process does not require an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of Social Security disability benefits.
ⓘ
The adequacy of administrative procedures for due process purposes is evaluated using a three-factor balancing test. ⓘ |
| influenced | later due process jurisprudence on risk-of-error analysis ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| languageOfCase | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
administrative procedures
ⓘ
procedural due process ⓘ termination of Social Security disability benefits ⓘ |
| pageInReporter | 319 ⓘ |
| petitioner | F. David Mathews ⓘ |
| precedentFor |
cases involving government entitlements and benefits
ⓘ
procedural due process analysis in administrative benefit determinations ⓘ procedural safeguards required before deprivation of property interests ⓘ |
| recognizedInterest | property interest in continued receipt of disability benefits ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | George H. Eldridge ⓘ |
| subjectCategory |
U.S. Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
ⓘ
U.S. Supreme Court cases on Social Security ⓘ U.S. Supreme Court cases on due process ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | termination of Social Security disability insurance benefits without a pre-termination evidentiary hearing ⓘ |
| typeOfProceeding | civil ⓘ |
| usedIn | analysis of what process is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ⓘ |
| volumeInReporter | 424 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1976 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Mathews v. Eldridge Description of subject: Mathews v. Eldridge is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a three-factor balancing test for determining what procedural safeguards due process requires in administrative proceedings.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)