The case of Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board in 2020 involved a dispute over disability benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA). The petitioner, Manfredo M. Salinas, had his application for an occupational disability annuity denied by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board because he did not have enough creditable railroad service at the time of filing his application to meet eligibility requirements under RRA provisions. He appealed this decision arguing that certain periods should be counted towards his service record and thus make him eligible for benefits. However, both the district court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the board's decision stating that Mr. Salinas was ineligible as per RRA rules which require applicants to have worked in a covered railroad job for at least 12 months out of last 30 months immediately preceding their retirement or disability onset date. In its ruling, Supreme Court affirmed lower courts' decisions agreeing with them on interpretation and application of relevant statutory provisions governing eligibility criteria under RRA.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Salinas v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of federal law and an overreach into state sovereignty. The dissenters believed that Texas' unique system for employing its prison inmates, which includes paying them nominal wages, should not be considered "compensation" under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). They contended that this interpretation would result in unintended consequences such as making these prisoners eligible for unemployment benefits upon release from prison despite never having paid into the system while incarcerated. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications on other states with similar systems and warned against setting a precedent where federal agencies could dictate how states manage their penal labor practices.