Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Wyman, Commissioner Of Social Services Of New York, Et Al. v. Rothstein Et Al.

• 1969 • 398 U.S. 275 • Burger Court
The Wyman v. Rothstein case in 1969 involved the Commissioner of Social Services of New York and a welfare recipient, Mrs. Rothstein. The issue at hand was whether home visits by social workers constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. Mrs. Rothstein had refused such a visit, leading to her benefits being terminated as it violated state regulations requiring recipients' cooperation with investigations into their eligibility for aid. The Supreme Court...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1969
Docket: 896
398 U.S. 275
90 S. Ct. 1582
26 L. Ed. 2d 218
1970 U.S. LEXIS 33
Argued: Apr 27, 1970

Wyman, Commissioner Of Social Services Of New York, Et Al. v. Rothstein Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The Wyman v. Rothstein case in 1969 involved the Commissioner of Social Services of New York and a welfare recipient, Mrs. Rothstein. The issue at hand was whether home visits by social workers constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. Mrs. Rothstein had refused such a visit, leading to her benefits being terminated as it violated state regulations requiring recipients' cooperation with investigations into their eligibility for aid. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wyman (the Commissioner), stating that these home visits were not searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because they were meant to be more rehabilitative than investigative and did not involve law enforcement officers or criminal prosecutions. Furthermore, they argued that while individuals do have a right to privacy in their homes, this does not extend so far as preventing all government access; especially when receiving public assistance which requires some level of accountability and oversight from authorities.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Wyman v. Rothstein, Justice William O. Douglas dissented from the majority opinion that upheld home visits by welfare officials as not violating Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. He argued that these visits were indeed a form of search because they involved government intrusion into private homes for investigative purposes without consent or warrant, which he believed was unconstitutional regardless of whether it was done in good faith or with benign intent. Furthermore, he contended that such practices could lead to abuses and invasions of privacy if left unchecked by legal safeguards like requiring probable cause or judicial oversight before conducting home inspections. In his view, the poor should not have to sacrifice their constitutional rights just to receive public assistance.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Jun 01, 1970
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms