In the case of Norton, a minor, by Chiles v. Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in 1975, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether Social Security benefits could be denied to an illegitimate child who had not been dependent on his deceased father at the time of death. The plaintiff argued that this denial violated their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under law. However, the court ruled against them stating that Congress's decision to limit survivor's benefits only for those children who were actually dependent on their parents at time of death did not violate any constitutional principles or rights. This ruling upheld previous decisions which allowed for distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate children when it came to social security benefits distribution.

In the dissenting opinion for Norton, a minor, by Chiles v. Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1975), Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power and violated principles of federalism. He contended that it is not within the Court's purview to decide whether or not states should provide Medicaid coverage for abortions; rather this decision should be left to individual states in accordance with their own laws and policies. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential implications on women’s rights as well as economic discrimination against poor women who may not have access to safe abortion services without Medicaid funding.