Yee-Litt

Before HAMLIN, Circuit Judge, and EAST and CARTER, District Judges.

OLIVER J. CARTER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs filed this action to declare unconstitutional and to enjoin federal and state regulations which permit the summary termination of welfare benefits prior to a hearing. The Federal Defendant is Elliot L. Richardson, the then Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act's categorical assistance programs. The State Defendant is Robert B. Carleson, Director of the California State Department of Social Welfare, the agency which administers California's categorical assistance programs. Jurisdiction for this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 , 2284. This action is also brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343 (3) and (4), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S. C. § 1983, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs have brought this action on behalf of themselves and all other California recipients under the categorical assistance programs of the Social Security Act, and all persons whose assistance under these programs has been reduced or terminated…

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiffs filed this action to declare unconstitutional and to enjoin federal and state regulations which permit the summary termination of welfare benefits prior to a hearing. The Federal Defendant is Elliot L. Richardson, the then Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act’s categorical assistance programs. The State Defendant is Robert B. Carleson, Director of the California State Depai'tment of Social Welfare, the agency which administers California’s categorical assistance programs. Jurisdiction for this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 , 2284. This action is also brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343 (3) and (4), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S. C. § 1983, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Plaintiffs have brought this action on behalf of themselves and all other California recipients under the categorical assistance programs of the Social Security Act, and all persons whose assistance under these programs has been *998 reduced or terminated pending appeal since September 3,1971, notwithstanding their timely request…

(concurring and dissenting):

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority order which grants broad injunctive relief against defendant Carleson. The majority objects to the challenged regulations because of errors committed by welfare administrators in determining whether a fair hearing request raises issues of fact or policy. While it might be that the regulations in question do not guarantee that no mistakes will be made, they are designed to, and reasonably do, provide aid pending fair hearings where factual matters are in dispute. This seems to be all that is required by Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 90 S.Ct. 1153 , 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970).

Defendant’s affidavits controvert the implication that the present system produces an excessive number of inequities and indicate that errors have been kept to a very small percentage. 1 Certainly errors are inherent in any very large scale administrative undertaking and I would expect that the defendant would use every effort to reduce even the small percentage now existing.

As Judge Learned Hand has stated, “ . . . due process of law does not mean infallible process of law.” Schechtman v. Foster, 172 F.2d 339, 341 (2nd…