The U.S. Supreme Court case Donna Rae Egelhoff v. Samantha Egelhoff, a minor, by and through her natural parent Kate Breiner, and David Egelhoff in 2000 revolved around the issue of whether state laws can dictate who receives benefits from federal insurance plans. The dispute arose after Mr. Egelhoff died suddenly two months after divorcing his wife Donna Rae but failed to remove her as beneficiary on his life insurance policy and pension plan provided by Boeing Company where he worked - both regulated under federal law (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). His children argued that according to Washington State law, divorce automatically revokes designation of a former spouse as beneficiary unless stated otherwise in the divorce decree which was not done here; hence they should receive their father's benefits instead of their ex-stepmother. However, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Mrs.Egelhoff stating that while states have authority over domestic relations matters like marriage or divorce outcomes generally speaking; when it comes to federally-regulated employee benefit plans such as these ones at stake here - only federal rules apply because ERISA preempts any state law relating to any employee benefit plan covered by ERISA.

In the dissenting opinion for Donna Rae Egelhoff v. Samantha Egelhoff, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision to invalidate Washington state law was incorrect as it did not interfere with Congress' objectives in enacting ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). She contended that the federal statute does not mandate a particular beneficiary designation scheme; instead, it allows plan participants to designate beneficiaries of their choice. The Washington law merely provides a default rule when no such designation has been made or if circumstances have changed due to divorce. According to her, this is consistent with ERISA’s goal of protecting employee benefits and ensuring they reach intended recipients. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's view that applying state laws would create administrative complexities for plan administrators since many already deal with similar issues under current practices.