The U.S. Supreme Court case Green et al. v. Mansour, Director, Michigan Department of Social Services (1985) revolved around the issue of whether federal courts could order state officials to follow a repealed federal statute in administering a federally funded program. The plaintiffs were recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), who claimed that the defendant had violated their rights by not following certain provisions of the Social Security Act which had been repealed by Congress before they filed their lawsuit. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against future violations but did not seek any retroactive monetary relief for past wrongs. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mansour stating that since there was no ongoing violation of federal law - as it has been repealed - there was no basis for granting prospective relief under Ex parte Young doctrine which allows suits against state officials seeking prospective relief from ongoing violations of federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for Green et al. v. Mansour, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to deny retroactive relief to plaintiffs who were wrongly denied benefits by Michigan Department of Social Services (MDSS). He argued that this ruling contradicted previous court decisions which allowed such relief in similar cases involving federal-state cooperative programs like Medicaid and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). According to him, denying retroactive relief would not serve any significant federal interest but rather harm those individuals who had been wrongfully deprived of their entitlements due to MDSS’s incorrect interpretation of eligibility rules. Furthermore, he contended that allowing states immunity from paying past-due benefits could incentivize them not only to interpret ambiguous regulations in a manner most favorable for themselves but also delay litigation until after they have changed their policies thereby avoiding payment altogether.