In the case of Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York v. Milne et al., 1975, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a New York State regulation that reduced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits for families living in public housing who received federal subsidies. The plaintiffs argued that this reduction violated both the Social Security Act and their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under law. However, the court ruled in favor of Lavine by a 6-3 majority decision stating that there was no violation as long as total income from all sources did not fall below state-determined standard need level. The court also held that it is within states' discretion to consider housing subsidies when calculating AFDC payments.

In the case of Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York v. Milne et al., Justice Brennan dissented from the majority opinion. He argued that the New York statute in question was unconstitutional because it violated due process rights by presuming a family's income without providing an opportunity for rebuttal or review. The law allowed welfare benefits to be reduced based on presumed contributions from non-legally responsible relatives living in the same household, which he believed unfairly penalized families who chose to live together and did not accurately reflect their financial situation. Furthermore, he contended that this presumption contradicted federal regulations requiring accurate determination of need before adjusting assistance levels.