In the case of Gomez v. Perez, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that a state cannot discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate children by denying support rights to those born out of wedlock. The appellant was an unmarried father from Texas who challenged a state law allowing only legitimate children to receive financial support from their parents. He argued this violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment since it discriminated against illegitimate children based on circumstances beyond their control. The court agreed with him, stating that while regulating parental obligations is within a state's power, they must do so without arbitrary discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for Gomez v. Perez, Justice William Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to extend equal protection rights to illegitimate children was an overreach of judicial power. He believed that it is not within the Court's purview to dictate how states should treat different categories of individuals, particularly when there are rational reasons for treating them differently. In this case, he suggested that Texas could have legitimate reasons for denying certain benefits and protections to illegitimate children in order to encourage marriage and discourage out-of-wedlock births. Furthermore, he contended that such policy decisions should be left up to state legislatures rather than federal courts. He also expressed concern about potential negative consequences of extending these rights too broadly without considering societal implications or historical context.