In the case of Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Morris et al., 1972, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government's position that Social Security benefits could be denied to children who were not dependent on their disabled parents at the time when those parents became eligible for disability insurance benefits. The plaintiffs argued that this policy violated both due process and equal protection clauses because it treated different classes of legitimate children differently based solely on whether or not they were born or conceived before their parent became eligible for disability insurance benefits. However, the court held that there was a rational basis for Congress' decision to limit eligibility to dependents as it helps maintain fiscal integrity within social security system by ensuring only those truly in need receive assistance.

In the dissenting opinion for Richardson v. Morris, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Social Security Act and its intent to provide aid to families with dependent children. He contended that by denying benefits to households where an unrelated individual resides, it contradicts Congress' aim of providing financial assistance to needy children in low-income homes. Furthermore, he asserted that this ruling could potentially lead these families into deeper poverty as they may be forced to evict lodgers who contribute financially towards household expenses or risk losing their welfare benefits altogether - a choice no family should have to make according his view.