In the case of Hines v. Lowrey, 1938, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving veterans' benefits. The plaintiff was an administrator for Veterans' Affairs and the defendant represented a veteran's estate. The issue at hand was whether or not state courts had jurisdiction over decisions made by federal agencies regarding veterans’ benefits claims. In this particular case, Garme’s claim for disability compensation had been denied by the Veterans Administration (VA). His guardian appealed to a state court which reversed VA's decision and ordered payment of his claim from funds held in trust by VA under another statute. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that states do not have jurisdiction over such matters because Congress intended these disputes to be handled exclusively within federal administrative channels without judicial review except as provided in statutes governing those agencies themselves. This ruling established precedent limiting state interference with federal agency decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Hines v. Lowrey, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny benefits to a World War I veteran who had been declared insane before his discharge from service was unjust and contrary to the intent of Congress when they enacted legislation providing benefits for veterans. The dissenting justices believed that this law should be interpreted liberally in favor of those it is intended to benefit - namely, veterans who have suffered as a result of their service. They contended that there was no evidence suggesting Congress intended to exclude individuals like Garme from receiving these benefits due solely to timing or sequence of events (i.e., being declared insane prior versus post-discharge). Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases were handled by different administrative bodies within Veterans' Affairs itself. In essence, they felt the majority's interpretation unfairly penalized an individual whose mental health issues were directly related to his military service and contradicted both legislative intent and principles of fairness.