In the case of Hines, Administrator of Veterans' Affairs v. Stein, Guardian (1935), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning federal jurisdiction and veterans' benefits. The plaintiff was an administrator for Veterans’ Affairs who sought to recover funds that were mistakenly paid out as veteran's benefits due to fraudulent misrepresentation by the recipient’s guardian. The defendant argued that this was not a federal issue but rather one for state courts since it involved guardianship laws and probate matters which are typically under state jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court held in favor of Hines stating that because these payments originated from federal funds and were governed by national legislation regarding veterans' affairs, it fell within their purview to decide upon such cases regardless of any related issues involving state law or policy. This decision reinforced principles surrounding supremacy clause where Federal law takes precedence over State law when there is conflict between them.

In the dissenting opinion for Hines v. Stein, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania statute that required all non-citizens to register and carry an identification card at all times. He argued that this law was unconstitutional as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by unfairly targeting foreign-born residents. Additionally, he contended that such laws should be left up to federal jurisdiction rather than individual states because immigration is a national issue. Justice McReynolds also expressed concern over potential abuse of power and discrimination resulting from this law, emphasizing its potential negative impact on international relations due to perceived hostility towards foreigners living in America.