The case of Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Eldridge are different in nature. Mrs. Kelly is fighting for her welfare benefits, while Mr. Eldridge is fighting for his disability benefit. Under the same point, they are both claiming that the terminations of their benefits were made without giving them the opportunity to undergo a “pre-evidentiary hearing”, which they both believe is a deprivation of their rights to enjoy the benefits of due process of law.
While both of them are entitled to be given pre-evidentiary hearing, but the nature of their benefits, and the circumstances that they are fighting are totally different. Mr. Eldridge’s case can be easily won; it only requires an effort of collecting medical information, as the case itself tackles disability benefit eligibility, Compared to Mrs. Kelly’s case, Mr. Eldridge has lots of options for proving his eligibility.
On the other hand, Mrs. Kelly’s case requires a deeper type of inquiry to prove her eligibility. However, under both are entitled to be given due process. But the court had prioritized Mrs. Kelly’s case as it requires broader scope of study compared to Mr. Eldridge. The court just wants to set priorities on their caseloads at hand.
Under the Goss v. Lopez, and the Ingraham v. Wright cases, again the weight of the interest and the liberty which is at stake is given higher value. In the first case, there were two major areas which are considered. First, students are entitled to avail education at schools. Second, expulsion, suspension, or any disciplinary actions imposed by schools can have an effect on the morality of the student.
Considering these two points, the school can’t impose disciplinary actions to students without pre-evidentiary hearing, because the degree of risk associated with imposing penalties is very high, therefore, it should be cautiously done. On the second case, complainants were fighting against imposing corporal punishment at schools. Imposing physical punishments such as paddling, betting, or forcing students to do shameless activities is against the law.
Students have the rights to be protected from such actions. However, this strategy of disciplining students has been traditionally applied by the school. Although this also involves degrading the morality of the students, or inflicting physical abuse, but this is still different from the Goss v. Lopez case.
The first case was characterized by imposing suspension, or expulsion, therefore, the student’s right to avail the right education is suppressed. But in either case, the presence of pre-evidentiary hearing is required; however, this is again another issue of prioritizing caseloads at the hands of the courts.
Pickering and Nurse Churchill’s cases differ in nature. Both employees were entitled to their rights to speak about their opinion. However, Pickering’s allegations are more viewed as an issue of public concern. The nature at which Mr. Pickering spoke of his idea is more reasonable and formal in nature, he wrote it in address to the people whom he wants to question.
But Churchill’s case was somewhat like spreading rumors or hearsay. Mr. Pickering’s case can be easily protected under the rights to speech while Churchill has more complexities.
All cases have good grounds on due process recognition. However, the aspect of how it can be processed under their claims requires more effort which the courts and other judicial system prioritize in terms of the validity of its claims and the level of interest and liberty of the different parties at stake.