In the case of Linda R.S. v. Richard D., a mother sought to have her child's biological father prosecuted for not providing financial support, as per Texas law at that time which only mandated child support for legitimate children. The Supreme Court ruled against Linda R.S., stating she had no standing to sue because the law was intended to punish men who abandoned their legal, marital families and not necessarily those who failed to provide financial assistance for illegitimate children. The court held that since the woman and her child were never part of a lawful family unit with Richard D., they could not claim injury from his actions under this specific statute. This decision highlighted how laws can be interpreted based on their original intent rather than broad application, even when it may seem unfair in certain situations.

In the dissenting opinion for Linda R.S. v. Richard D., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall, argued that the majority's interpretation of "case or controversy" was too narrow and restrictive. They believed Linda had a legitimate interest in seeking enforcement of child support payments from Richard D., as it would directly benefit her financially-strapped situation. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority's view that only state officials could enforce criminal laws; they asserted private citizens should have standing to request such enforcement when their personal interests are affected. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for ignoring societal changes where women increasingly bear financial responsibility for children’s upbringing due to absent fathers who evade child support obligations.