In the 1936 case of Helvering v. Davis, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Social Security Act's old-age benefits provisions. The plaintiff, George P. Davis, argued that these provisions were unconstitutional because they represented an improper use of federal power to regulate for welfare purposes and violated states' rights under the Tenth Amendment. However, in a unanimous decision led by Justice Benjamin Cardozo, it was ruled that Congress had acted within its powers as outlined in Article I Section 8 Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause) when creating this program to promote general welfare among elderly citizens who could no longer work due to age-related reasons or disability. This landmark ruling affirmed social security as a legitimate exercise of federal authority and set precedent for future cases involving social safety net programs.

In the dissenting opinion for Helvering v. Davis, Justice James Clark McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Constitution and argued that Social Security was not a permissible exercise of Congress' power to tax and spend for the general welfare. He contended that if Congress could levy taxes in an attempt to provide for future public welfare, there would be virtually no limit on its taxation powers. Furthermore, he believed this case represented a dangerous expansion of federal authority into areas traditionally managed by states or private entities - such as insurance and retirement planning - which threatened to undermine state sovereignty and individual liberty. In his view, Social Security was essentially a compulsory insurance program rather than a legitimate use of congressional spending power; thus it should have been deemed unconstitutional.