Mathews v. Diaz
United States Supreme Court
426 U.S. 67, 96 S. Ct. 1883, 48 L. Ed. 2d 478 (1976)
- Written by Richard Lavigne, JD
Facts
Diaz, Clara, and Espinosa (plaintiffs) all lawfully entered the United States. Espinosa was a permanent resident, while Diaz and Clara remained in the country at the discretion of the attorney general. They were all over 65 years of age and were denied enrollment in the federal Medicare Part B medical-insurance program. They sued in federal district court, alleging that the program’s requirements of permanent resident status and five years of residency in the United States were unconstitutional. The district court held that the requirements were unconstitutional because they were not rationally based and free from invidious discrimination and therefore violated the Fifth Amendment’s due-process requirement. The government appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 928,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,400 briefs, keyed to 1,003 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
