In the case of Fusari, Commissioner of Labor v. Steinberg et al., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a challenge to Connecticut's unemployment compensation law. The plaintiffs argued that the state's procedures for determining eligibility and handling appeals violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because they were not given an opportunity for a fair hearing before benefits were terminated. The court agreed with this argument in part, finding that while claimants did have an initial determination and appeal process available to them, these processes lacked sufficient procedural safeguards to ensure fairness. Specifically, there was no provision requiring prompt resolution of disputes or timely notice about reasons for denial or termination of benefits. Therefore, it concluded that Connecticut’s system was unconstitutional as it stood but left open the possibility for reforming its procedures to meet constitutional standards.

In the dissenting opinion for Fusari v. Steinberg, Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's view that Connecticut's unemployment compensation law was unconstitutional due to its lack of provision for a "prompt and adequate" hearing in cases where benefits were denied. He argued that the claimants had not exhausted all available state remedies before seeking federal relief, which he believed should be a prerequisite before any constitutional issues are considered by federal courts. Furthermore, he contended that even if they had done so, there was no violation of due process because claimants could request an immediate de novo hearing after initial denial of benefits - thus satisfying requirements for procedural fairness under existing legal precedents. Finally, he criticized the majority’s decision as overstepping judicial boundaries by dictating specific procedures states must follow in their administrative processes.