In the case of Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Owens et al., 1985, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal law which denied additional Social Security benefits to divorced spouses who had been married less than 20 years was constitutional. The plaintiffs argued that this provision violated their Fifth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection under the law because it discriminated against them based on marital status and gender. However, the court held that Congress had a rational basis for enacting this requirement as part of its broader scheme to provide financial assistance to elderly individuals with long-term attachments to the workforce or those dependent on wage earners with such attachment. Therefore, it did not violate either due process or equal protection principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Owens et al., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Section 402(a)(38) of the Social Security Act. He argued that this section does not permit a state to deny AFDC benefits to children living with their parents in intact two-parent families where only one parent is unemployed. In his view, Congress intended this provision to apply solely when both parents are out-of-work or incapacitated. He criticized the majority's reliance on legislative history as selective and misleading because it ignored other relevant congressional intent evidence suggesting that Congress did not want states denying aid based on parental unemployment status alone. Furthermore, he believed that such denial contradicts AFDC’s purpose: providing financial assistance to needy dependent children whose own earnings or income from any source are insufficient for meeting subsistence needs.