In the case of Maine et al. v. Thiboutot Et Vir., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that Section 1983, a federal statute, allows individuals to sue states for violations of federal statutory law as well as constitutional law. The plaintiffs in this case were Paul and Patrice Thiboutot who sued the state of Maine after it incorrectly calculated their welfare benefits, violating Title XVI of the Social Security Act - a federal statute. They sought damages under Section 1983 which traditionally had been used only for constitutional violations by state actors but not for mere statutory ones. In a controversial decision, with Justice William Brennan writing for majority (6-3), it was held that language in section 1983 referring to "laws" included both statutes and constitution hence allowing such suits against states.

In the dissenting opinion for Maine et al. v. Thiboutot et vir., Justice Powell, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist, argued that the majority's interpretation of 42 U.S.C §1983 was too broad. They contended that this statute was intended to provide a federal remedy against those who violated civil rights under color of state law, not as a general vehicle for bringing all federal statutory claims against states in federal court. The dissenters believed that expanding its scope would disrupt the balance between state and federal courts by allowing any violation of federal law by state officials to be litigated in federal court rather than through existing administrative or judicial remedies at the state level. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential floodgates being opened for litigation over minor violations of complex regulatory statutes which were better handled administratively or legislatively.