The U.S. Supreme Court case Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Gray Panthers in 1980 revolved around the issue of whether or not the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had exceeded its authority by implementing a regulation that reduced benefits for elderly recipients who lived with others as opposed to those living alone under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. The Gray Panthers argued that this was discriminatory against elderly people who chose to live together rather than alone, thus violating their Fifth Amendment rights. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled in favor of HHS stating it did not exceed its statutory authority when it implemented such regulations because Congress intended for SSI benefits to be adjusted based on an individual's living arrangements. Furthermore, they found no violation of due process or equal protection principles since there were rational reasons behind differentiating benefit levels based on one’s living situation – namely reducing administrative complexity and preventing overpayment where shared expenses may reduce an individual's cost-of-living.

In the dissenting opinion for Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Social Security Act and its amendments. He contended that Congress intended to provide Medicare benefits to all eligible individuals regardless of whether they were receiving cash assistance or not. The justice believed that by allowing states to limit eligibility based on receipt of cash assistance, it would create an unfair system where some elderly and disabled people could be denied necessary medical care due to their financial circumstances. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for deferring too much power to administrative agencies in interpreting legislation rather than relying on judicial review as a check against potential abuses of discretion.