In the case of Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Belcher in 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a provision within the Social Security Act did not violate due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The provision allowed for social security benefits to be reduced based on other income received from state worker's compensation programs. Mr. Belcher argued this was unfair as he had contributed to both systems independently and should receive full benefits from each without reduction or offsetting amounts between them. The court disagreed with his argument stating that there is no contractual right to social security benefits because they are non-contractual social welfare provisions provided by law rather than through individual contributions or premiums paid into an insurance scheme. Therefore, Congress has broad authority to amend these laws as it sees fit including making adjustments for dual benefit situations like this one where someone receives payments from two different government programs at once. Furthermore, since Mr.Belcher still received substantial overall benefits even after reductions were made due to his additional workers' compensation income; therefore it could not be said that he was denied any property interest without due process of law.

In the dissenting opinion for Richardson v. Belcher, Justice Douglas argued that the Social Security Act's offset provision was unconstitutional because it violated due process rights. He contended that social security benefits are not a privilege granted by the government but rather a contractual right earned through years of work and contributions to the system. Therefore, any reduction in these benefits without an individual’s consent or without providing them with an opportunity to be heard is unjustifiable and violates their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s view that social security payments were similar to workers' compensation or welfare payments which could be adjusted based on other income sources; instead he saw them as deferred wages owed to individuals upon retirement or disability.