The Supreme Court case Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. City of New York et al., 1985 revolved around the Social Security Disability benefits program. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had implemented a policy that required claimants to show their disability was not only severe but also expected to last for at least 12 months or result in death before they could qualify for benefits. This policy was challenged by the city of New York along with several individual plaintiffs who claimed it violated both the Social Security Act itself as well as due process rights because it wasn't officially published or subjected to public comment before being put into effect. In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with New York City and other plaintiffs, ruling that HHS's undisclosed eligibility requirements were indeed unlawful under Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It held that such significant changes should have been made known through proper channels so individuals affected would be aware about how their claims are evaluated.

In the dissenting opinion for Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. City of New York et al., Justice O'Connor argued that the court overstepped its bounds by ruling on a policy issue rather than a legal one. She contended that it was not within the Court's jurisdiction to decide whether or not the Social Security Administration's (SSA) internal guidelines were fair or appropriate; instead, their role should have been limited to determining if these guidelines violated any laws or regulations. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority’s view that SSA had intentionally concealed this policy from public scrutiny and believed there was no evidence supporting such an assertion. In her view, while there may be valid criticisms about how SSA handled disability benefits claims under these guidelines, those concerns should be addressed through legislative action rather than judicial intervention.