Marshall also argued that the majority did not correctly applied the three-part test in "Mathews v. Eldridge", . The Court focused solely on the risk of an erroneous deprivation, without looking at the other two "Mathews" prongs—the nature of the interest at stake and the burden on the government that a marginal increase in procedural protections entails. "Certainly the interest in being released from incarceration is of sufficient magnitude to have some bearing on the process due." Moreover, the Court did not even focus on the risk of error that the Nebraska procedure actually entailed, with the result that its analysis of the effect on that risk additional procedures would have was necessarily skewed as well. Finally, due process also required that the procedures "appear" fair as well as actually "be" fair. The Court had ignored this aspect of the due process analysis as well.