This case balances against Goldberg v Kelly, and indicates that the Court still limits the extent to which procedural due process may outweigh the Court’s interest in efficiency. Ultimately, the Court held that due process is “flexible” and requires only “such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” In some instances, as in this case, procedural safeguards can adequately uphold due process requirements without granting the petitioner a hearing.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (Google Scholar, Oyez Project).
