In the case of Philbrook, Commissioner, Department of Social Welfare v. Glodgett et al., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over welfare benefits. The plaintiffs were Vermont residents who received Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and had been denied additional benefits for special needs due to their children's mental or physical conditions. They argued that this denial violated both federal law and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because other states provided such extra aid while Vermont did not. The court ruled in favor of Philbrook, stating that there was no violation as long as basic AFDC standards set by federal law were met by each state - which they found Vermont had done so adequately. Furthermore, it held that variations between states' welfare programs did not infringe upon equal protection rights since these differences are inherent in our federal system where individual states have discretion over certain aspects of public assistance programs.

In the dissenting opinion for Philbrook v. Glodgett, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from precedent and an intrusion on state sovereignty. He contended that it is not within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to decide how states should allocate their welfare resources or determine what constitutes “adequate” assistance. According to him, these are decisions best left to elected officials who are more familiar with local conditions and needs. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on statistical data as arbitrary and subjective because there is no universally accepted standard for determining adequacy of welfare benefits. He also expressed concern about federal courts becoming involved in day-to-day administration of state programs which could lead to judicial overreach.