In the case of Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Hogan et al., 1981, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on whether federal Medicare law permitted a state to consider an institutionalized spouse's income when determining Medicaid eligibility for their at-home spouse. The respondents were elderly couples from Connecticut who challenged this practice as it resulted in reduced Medicaid benefits for them. They argued that such consideration violated both statutory and constitutional rights. The court held that states could indeed take into account the income of an institutionalized spouse when calculating Medicaid eligibility for a non-institutionalized partner under federal Medicare law. It further stated that there was no violation of due process or equal protection principles because Congress had not explicitly prohibited such practices by states within its legislation. This decision affirmed the right of states to implement measures aimed at preventing spousal impoverishment while ensuring fair distribution of limited public resources among those eligible for medical assistance programs like Medicaid.

In the dissenting opinion for Schweiker v. Hogan, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding due process rights. He contended that the Secretary of Health and Human Services' policy to presume income sharing between spouses living together violated an individual’s right to a hearing before being deprived of property (in this case, Supplemental Security Income benefits). The presumption could be incorrect in many cases, yet individuals were not given an opportunity to prove otherwise before their benefits were reduced or eliminated. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that providing hearings would be administratively burdensome; instead suggesting it is necessary for protecting constitutional rights. Finally, he criticized the majority for failing to apply heightened scrutiny when reviewing legislation affecting fundamental rights such as marriage and family life.