In the 1972 case United States Department of Agriculture et al. v. Moreno et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a provision in the Food Stamp Act, which denied food stamps to households containing unrelated individuals, was unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause under Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court held that this provision did not rationally further its stated goal of preventing fraud within the food stamp program and instead targeted "hippie communes." The majority opinion argued that if preventing fraud were truly Congress' aim, they would have tailored regulations more narrowly rather than broadly excluding all households with unrelated members regardless of their potential for abuse or exploitation of the system. This decision marked an important precedent in cases involving discrimination against non-traditional families and groups.

In the dissenting opinion for United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by substituting their judgment for that of Congress. He contended that it was not within the Court's purview to question whether a statute is unwise or results in some inequality; rather, they should only consider if it violates specific constitutional prohibitions. In this case, he believed there was no violation as Congress has broad powers under the Constitution to regulate commerce and provide for general welfare through spending programs like food stamps. The exclusion of households with unrelated members from receiving food stamps did not violate equal protection clause because all persons similarly situated were treated alike - any household containing an unrelated member could be denied benefits regardless of race or other protected status.