O‘zbekiston respublikasida ma’muriy protseduralarni takomillashtirish

Nutshell» fifth edition. Thomson/West, 2006. 210-211 p). 
 
4.12-ilova 
«Even where a plaintiff can show a «property» or «liberty» interest that has been 
infringed, she may face other threshold obstacles toher persuit of a procedural due 
process claim. First, an injury to a protected interest does not qualify as a 
«deprivation» if it was inflicted through mere negligence rather than 
deliberately…Second, only a person to whom the challenged order is directed is 
entitled to due process; a plaintiff who may be worse off because of government 
action toward a third party has no constitutional injury…A final limitation, which is 
of vital importance in administrative law, is that procedural due process guarantees 
are directed primarily at adjudicative action and are rarely applicable to agency 
rulemaking proceedings». (Ernest Gellhorn, Ronald M.Levin «Administrative Law 
and Process in a Nutshell» fifth edition. Thomson/West, 2006. 217-219 p). 
 
4.13-ilova 
«Once it has been determined that a constitutionally protected liberty or property 
interest was infringed, the next stage of the due process analysis is to decide what 
procedures the Constitution requires. Much of the Supreme Court’s case law on this 
topic can be understood as elaborating upon – or, more often, reacting against – the 
Court’s expansive ruling in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). There the Court 
held that welfare recipients in New York had to be afforded an evidentiary hearing 

---

142 
before they could be terminated from the program. At the hearing, they would be 
entitled to many of the procedural safeguards that had historically been available in 
court proceedings, such as the right to present a case orally, to confront adverse 
witnesses, to appear through an attorney, and to receive a decision based exclusively 
on the hearing record. The Goldberg opinion gave rise to concern that the Court 
might soon impose trial-type procedures in many other programs, including ones in 
which courtroom methods would be ineffective or too expensive. In Mathews v. 
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), however, the Court demonstrated that it was 
determined to maintain flexibility in due process analysis. The Court declared that it 
would look at three factors in order to decide what due process requires in a given 
situation: «First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; 
second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures 
used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute safeguards; and 
finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and 
administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would 
entail». Applying this balancing test, the Court held that an order terminating a 
person’s Social Security disability benefits need not be preceded by an evidentiary 
hearing. The Mathews test has been criticized as being so open-ended as to give 
courts little guidance: judges are put into the position of making policy choices much 
as a legislator would do. On the other hand, the test has also been criticized ass too 
restrictive: it implies that procedures are to be evaluated solely on the basis of 
whether they promote or detract from accuracy, without regard to whether the process 
will likely be perceived as fair. But the Court has continued to invoke the three-factor 
test in a wide variety of factual settings…In appliying the Mathews formula, a court 
is not limited to an either-or choice between a full trial-type hearing and the informal 
procedures the agency is already using. Rather, each procedural right must be 
analyzed separately, and alternatives or intermediate procedural models must be 
considered. For purposes of explanation, the procedural rights that have been 
examined most frequently in due process litigation can be grouped into several broad 

---

143 
categories» (Ernest Gellhorn, Ronald M.Levin «Administrative Law and Process in a