In the case of Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Wilson et al., 1980, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding Social Security benefits for disabled individuals. The plaintiffs were two women who had been denied disability benefits by the Social Security Administration (SSA) because they did not meet certain eligibility criteria outlined in SSA regulations. They argued that these regulations were inconsistent with the intent of Congress as expressed in Section 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act which defines disability. The court held that while it was true that some people might be found ineligible for benefits under SSA's rules despite being unable to work due to their disabilities, this did not mean those rules contradicted Congressional intent. It noted that Congress intended for only those whose conditions are severe enough to prevent them from doing any gainful activity should qualify for disability payments and gave broad discretion to SSA in determining how best to implement this policy. Therefore, even though there may be cases where an individual is unable to engage in substantial gainful activity but still does not meet all requirements set out by SSA's regulations, such situations do not necessarily indicate a conflict between those regulations and Congressional intent.

In the dissenting opinion for Schweiker v. Wilson, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a significant departure from established precedent regarding due process rights. He contended that the Court had previously held that individuals have a property interest in welfare benefits and are thus entitled to certain procedural protections before those benefits can be terminated or reduced. In this case, he believed these protections were not adequately provided when Social Security disability benefits were converted into Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) benefits without giving recipients an opportunity for a hearing on their eligibility under OASI rules. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view of "entitlement" as it pertained to social security beneficiaries' expectations of continued receipt of disability payments until they reach retirement age; instead asserting such entitlements should be recognized as protected by due process clause. Lastly, Justice Marshall criticized Congress’s lack of clear intent in legislation which led to confusion over whether disabled workers automatically transitioned into retirement at 65 years old.