The U.S. Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor (1959) revolved around the issue of whether an individual has a vested right to Social Security benefits, and if termination of these benefits without a hearing violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Ephram Nestor, who had paid into Social Security for 19 years, was deported for being a member of the Communist Party and his benefits were subsequently terminated under Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act. The court ruled in favor of Arthur S Flemming, Secretary of Health Education and Welfare at that time; it held that entitlement to social security benefits is not contractual or based on accrued property rights but rather they are non-contractual federal welfare programs subject to amendment by Congress at any time. Furthermore, it stated that terminating such payments upon deportation does not constitute punishment nor violate due process as there's no requirement for pre-termination hearing.

In the dissenting opinion for Flemming v. Nestor, Justice Black and Justice Douglas argued that the termination of benefits from a program into which an individual has paid constitutes a violation of due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. They contended that social security payments are not charity or handouts but rather earned rights to benefits, similar to annuities in private insurance plans. The justices believed it was unconstitutional for Congress to cancel these earned rights arbitrarily without any hearing or review process. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on deportation as grounds for cancellation, arguing that this provision is punitive and violates principles against ex post facto laws (laws punishing actions retroactively). In their view, once someone has fulfilled their part by paying into Social Security system over time, they have established property interest in receiving future payments regardless of changes in circumstances such as immigration status.