Richardson v. Wright

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 405 U.S. 208, 31 L. Ed. 2d 151, 92 S. Ct. 788, SCDB 1971-066, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 88

Decision Date: 2/24/1972

Docket Number: No. 70-161

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Richardson v. Wright, 405 U.S. 208, 31 L. Ed. 2d 151, 92 S. Ct. 788, SCDB 1971-066, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 88 (1972)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1972

RICHARDSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE v. WRIGHT et al.

Judges

  • with whom Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall join,

Attorneys

  • Assistant Attorney General Gray argued the cause for appellant in No. 70-151 and for appellee in No. 70-5211. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Griswold, Kathryn H. Baldwin, Wilmot R. Hastings, Edwin H. Yourman, and Paul Merlin.
  • Robert N. Sayler argued the cause and filed briefs for appellees in No. 70-161 and for appellants in No. 70-5211.
  • Briefs of amici curiae in both cases were filed by Thomas L. Fike for the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County; by David H. Marlin and Jonathan A. Weiss for the National Council of Senior Citizens; and by Albert C. Neimeth for Luella H. Mills et al. Bernard P. Becker and Harvey N. Schmidt filed a brief for Stella Van Guilder et al. as amici curiae.
majority Per Curiam.

We noted probable jurisdiction of these appeals, 404 U. S. 819 (1971), to consider the applicability of Gold berg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), to the suspension and termination of disability benefit payments pursuant to § 225 of the Social Security Act, 70 Stat. 817, 42 U. S. C. § 425, and implementing regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Shortly before oral argument, we were advised that the Secretary had adopted new regulations, effective December 27, 1971, governing the procedures to be followed by the Social Security Administration in determining whether to suspend or terminate disability benefits. These procedures include the requirement that a recipient of benefits be given notice of a proposed suspension and the reasons therefor, plus an opportunity to submit rebuttal evidence. In light of that development, we believe that the appropriate course is to withhold judicial action pending reprocessing, under the new regulations, of the determinations here in dispute. If that process results in a determination of entitlement to disability benefits, there will be no need to consider the constitutional claim that claimants are entitled to an opportunity to make an oral presentation. In the context of a comprehensive complex administrative program, the administrative process must have a reasonable opportunity to evolve procedures to meet needs as they arise. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the District Court for the District of Columbia, 321 F. Supp. 383 (1971), with direction to that court to remand the cause to the Secretary and to retain jurisdiction for such further proceedings, if any, as may be necessary upon completion of the administrative procedure.

Vacated and remanded.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.