The Carleson v. Remillard case in 1971 revolved around the issue of whether a state could reduce or terminate Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits without providing recipients an evidentiary hearing prior to such action. The Supreme Court ruled that due process requires states to provide AFDC recipients with an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing before reducing or terminating their benefits, as per the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision was based on Goldberg v. Kelly, which established that welfare benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement and cannot be terminated without due process protections including notice and a fair hearing.

In the dissenting opinion for Carleson v. Remillard, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of federal law and an overreach into state jurisdiction. He contended that Congress intended to give states discretion in determining eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits when it passed the Social Security Act Amendments of 1967. The majority ruling, he believed, wrongly assumed that Congress meant to require states to provide AFDC benefits under all circumstances outlined by federal law without considering individual state policies or financial capabilities. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative impacts on state budgets due to this imposed uniformity in welfare policy across different states with varying economic conditions and needs.