conferred by the government itself. Its members reasoned that welfare benefits were a privilege granted by the government, rather than a right; they could, therefore, be withdrawn at will (Tribe, 1988, pp. 680-81). During the 1970s, however, the Court came to see welfare benefits as entitlements or interests in liberty or property which could no be taken away without procedural due process. Thus, a welfare recipient was entitled to an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of his benefits (Goldberg v. Kelly, 1970). A few years later, the Court articulated a balancing test, whereby the strength of the private interest involved plus the risk of erroneous deprivation of this interest without the additional procedural safeguards are balanced against the government interest and the fiscal and administrative burdens of the required procedures. If the balance weighs in favor of the government, no additional procedures are required (Mathews v. Eldridge, 1976).
The Court has also applied equal protection analysis to welfare benefits. In doing so, however, it refused to apply heightened scrutiny to the government actions. Thus, the state action must rationally further some legitimate state purpose; it need not, however, substantially further a compelling state interest (San Antonio Ind. School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 1973). Economic interests represented by welfare benefits are not considered fundamental rights under current equal protection analysis (Dandridge v. Williams, 1970).
The cases involving education are similar to those involving welfare benefits. Certain procedures are required when the governmen
...