The U.S. Supreme Court case Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Eldridge in 1975 revolved around the issue of due process in the termination of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. The respondent George Eldridge's benefits were terminated without a pre-termination evidentiary hearing based on medical reports that he was no longer disabled. He argued this violated his right to procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Mathews (the government), holding that an individual is not constitutionally entitled to an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of Social Security disability benefit payments when there are adequate procedures for post-termination review. The majority opinion held that requiring such hearings would be administratively burdensome and financially costly while providing little additional protection against erroneous deprivation. This decision established a balancing test for determining what type of administrative process is constitutionally required before depriving someone their property or liberty interest: consideration must be given to private interests affected by official action; risk error inherent in initial procedure used; probable value if any additional safeguards; governmental interest including function involved fiscal/administrative burdens.

In the dissenting opinion for Mathews v. Eldridge, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart, argued that a pre-termination hearing was necessary before discontinuing disability benefits under Social Security Act. They contended that due process required an evidentiary hearing prior to termination of these vital needs-based benefits because it involved issues of credibility and medical fact best resolved in such a setting. The majority's reliance on written submissions as sufficient procedural protection failed to acknowledge the importance of oral presentation in disputes involving complex factual matters like medical assessments or claimant’s ability to work despite their disabilities. Additionally, they disagreed with the majority's assessment that post-termination hearings were adequate remedies for erroneous terminations since delays could cause severe hardship for beneficiaries who relied heavily on these payments.