In the case of Hopkins v. Cohen, Acting Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in 1967, the Supreme Court was asked to decide on a matter concerning Social Security benefits. The plaintiff, Mrs. Hopkins had been receiving widow's insurance benefits under the Social Security Act but these were terminated when she remarried at age 60. She argued that this termination violated her rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as it discriminated against women who remarry after age 60 compared to those who do not remarry or marry before turning 60. The court ruled in favor of Cohen (the acting secretary), stating that there was no violation because Congress has broad powers to create classifications for social welfare programs like Social Security and such classifications need only be rationally based and free from invidious discrimination. In this case, they found that encouraging older widows to remarry without fear of losing their financial independence is a legitimate government interest which justifies treating them differently than younger widows.

In the dissenting opinion for Hopkins v. Cohen, the justice argued that the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare had not exceeded his statutory authority by implementing a regulation that required states to consider both parents' income in determining a child's eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The justice believed that this requirement was consistent with Congress’s intent when it established AFDC - to provide financial assistance to needy children who lacked adequate parental support. He also pointed out that there were safeguards in place under federal law which prevented any unfairness or hardship resulting from considering both parents’ incomes. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "parent" as used in relevant statutes and regulations. In his view, these terms should be interpreted broadly enough to include stepparents living in the same household as their stepchildren.