In the case of Richard A. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture v. International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), et al., 1987, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a federal food stamp program could be denied to striking workers. The UAW argued that an amendment to the Food Stamp Act which excluded strikers from receiving benefits was unconstitutional as it violated their First Amendment rights by discouraging lawful strike activities and also breached equal protection under Fifth Amendment due process clause by treating them differently than other unemployed persons. However, in a 5-4 decision favoring Lyng, the court held that Congress had not acted unconstitutionally when they amended the act because there is no constitutional right to receive food stamps; thus denying them did not infringe upon any protected speech or conduct related to strikes nor violate equal protection principles since strikers are different from others who are involuntarily unemployed.

In the dissenting opinion for Lyng v. International Union, UAW et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize a significant constitutional violation. They contended that the government's action in this case was not merely an indirect economic pressure but rather a direct penalty on those who choose to exercise their First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that when Congress enacted legislation denying food stamps to striking workers' households while providing them to non-striking households, it aimed at suppressing strikes and infringing upon workers' constitutionally protected right of association. They held that such governmental interference with fundamental rights should be subjected to strict scrutiny review - requiring proof of compelling state interest - which they felt had not been demonstrated here.