In the case of Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Hansen (1980), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, represented by Richard S. Schweiker, then Secretary of Health and Human Services. The dispute arose when Shirley M. Hansen applied for Social Security benefits but was denied due to a lack of sufficient work credits under her ex-husband's account because she had not been married to him for 20 years as required by law at that time; they were short by two days from meeting this requirement. Hansen argued that an error made by a Social Security Administration employee led her to believe she would be eligible for these benefits once divorced, causing her financial harm when she relied on this incorrect information while making important life decisions such as getting a divorce and retiring early. The court held that relief could not be granted based on equitable estoppel against the government since it would undermine established laws regarding eligibility requirements for social security benefits if exceptions were made based on misinformation given out mistakenly or negligently by its employees.

In the dissenting opinion for Schweiker v. Hansen, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Section 205(c)(5)(F) of the Social Security Act. He believed that this section should be read as allowing claimants to submit new evidence at any time before a final decision is made on their application for benefits, not just within ten days after an initial denial as interpreted by the majority. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that Congress intended to limit reconsiderations in order to expedite processing and reduce administrative burdens. Instead, he asserted that Congress' primary concern was ensuring fair treatment and accuracy in determining eligibility for benefits rather than efficiency or speediness of procedures. Therefore, he contended that Ms.Hansen should have been allowed to present her additional wage records during her appeal process.