The New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization et al. v. Cahill, Governor of New Jersey, et al., 1972 case was a class action lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of all individuals in New Jersey who were denied welfare benefits due to Regulation 607. This regulation required that an applicant for assistance must have resided in the state for at least one year immediately prior to making their application. The plaintiffs argued that this violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as several federal statutes governing public assistance programs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring Regulation 607 unconstitutional because it created an unjustified classification between residents based on length of residency which infringed upon their right to travel from State to State - a fundamental constitutional right protected by Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, it found no compelling state interest justifying such discrimination against new residents seeking aid.

In the dissenting opinion for New Jersey Welfare Rights Organization v. Cahill, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law reducing welfare benefits for families living in federally subsidized housing was fundamentally flawed. He contended that this ruling violated both equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution by unfairly targeting low-income individuals who were already struggling financially. Douglas also criticized the majority's reasoning behind their decision, stating it lacked empirical evidence and relied on unfounded assumptions about welfare recipients' behavior. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how such policies could potentially discourage people from seeking necessary assistance or force them into even more precarious living situations.