The Sims v. Cohen case in 1967 revolved around the issue of whether a state could reduce or terminate public assistance benefits without providing prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing to the recipient. The Supreme Court ruled that such actions violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under law. The court held that welfare recipients should be given timely and adequate notice detailing reasons for proposed termination or reduction, as well as an effective opportunity to contest these decisions before they take effect. This landmark decision emphasized procedural fairness in administrative proceedings affecting individual rights and interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Sims v. Cohen, the justice argued that the majority's decision to strike down Connecticut's residency requirement for welfare recipients was misguided. The justice believed that states should have the right to determine their own eligibility criteria for public assistance programs, as long as they do not violate federal law or constitutional principles. They contended that Connecticut's one-year residency requirement did not infringe upon any federally protected rights and served a legitimate state interest in ensuring fiscal responsibility and preventing abuse of its welfare system. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of Shapiro v Thompson which struck down similar requirements on grounds it violated equal protection clause; instead arguing this case differed significantly from Shapiro because it involved different statutory schemes and legal issues.