In Robinson et al. v. Johnson et al., 1968, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a Pennsylvania law that allowed for the termination of parental rights due to refusal or failure of parents to provide "necessary care" for their children violated constitutional rights. The plaintiffs were impoverished parents who had lost custody of their children because they could not afford adequate housing and argued that this constituted discrimination based on wealth status, violating equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled in favor of Johnson, upholding the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's child neglect laws. It found no violation in treating those unable to care for their children differently from those who can but choose not to do so; it is within state power and responsibility towards child welfare rather than an issue about wealth discrimination. This case highlighted how poverty can impact family integrity and raised questions about states' responsibilities toward economically disadvantaged citizens.

In the dissenting opinion for Robinson et al. v. Johnson et al., Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania law prohibiting welfare benefits to individuals residing in homes with unrelated members of the opposite sex was misguided and unconstitutional. He contended that this ruling violated due process rights, as it unjustly penalized those who were not legally married but lived together out of economic necessity or personal choice. Furthermore, he believed it infringed upon their right to privacy by intruding into their living arrangements without sufficient justification from the state government. In his view, such laws should be subjected to strict scrutiny under equal protection principles because they disproportionately affected low-income families and single parents who relied on shared housing costs for survival.