In the case of Hagans et al. v. Lavine, Commissioner, New York Department of Social Services, et al., 1973, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding welfare benefits and federal jurisdiction over state laws. The plaintiffs were recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) who claimed that their benefits had been reduced or terminated without due process by the New York Department of Social Services under regulations which they argued conflicted with federal law. They sought relief in Federal District Court but were denied based on lack of substantiality in their constitutional claim. The Supreme Court held that even though one part of a complaint may be insubstantial and thus not within federal jurisdiction, if another part presents a substantial constitutional question then it is within the competence of a district court to decide both issues together as they are intertwined and cannot be separated easily. Therefore, despite some parts being deemed insubstantial by lower courts previously; because there was at least one valid constitutional issue raised - whether due process rights had been violated - this provided sufficient grounds for bringing all claims before the Federal District Court.

In the dissenting opinion for Hagans v. Lavine, Justice William Rehnquist argued that federal courts should not have jurisdiction over state welfare disputes because they are essentially local matters. He contended that such issues were better suited to be resolved by state administrative and judicial systems rather than in federal courtrooms. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential burden on federal courts if they were to handle all cases involving alleged violations of constitutional rights within state-administered programs like welfare services. In his view, this could lead to an overwhelming number of lawsuits and potentially hinder the effective functioning of these institutions.