In the case of Blum v. Bacon, 1981, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Barbara Blum, Commissioner for the Department of Social Services in New York. The issue at hand was whether or not a state could reduce or terminate public assistance benefits without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine if circumstances had changed enough to warrant such action. The court held that due process did not require an evidentiary hearing before reducing or terminating public assistance benefits under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Home Relief programs when federal law required adjustments based on changes in other benefit programs like Supplemental Security Income (SSI). This decision upheld New York's policy of automatically adjusting AFDC and Home Relief payments following changes in SSI benefits without providing recipients with pre-reduction hearings.

In the dissenting opinion for Blum v. Bacon, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of federal law and would have negative implications on low-income families. He contended that Congress intended to provide assistance to all children in need, not just those whose parents were unemployed. The majority's interpretation, he believed, unfairly excluded some needy children from receiving aid under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program based on their parents' employment status rather than their actual needs. Furthermore, he criticized the court for deferring too much to state agencies' interpretations of federal laws at the expense of vulnerable citizens who rely on these programs for support.