In Sorenson v. Secretary of the Treasury et al., 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal law allowing for tax refund offsets to satisfy child support obligations did not violate due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The case was brought by a divorced father who had his income tax refunds intercepted by the government in order to pay outstanding child support payments owed to his ex-wife and children. He argued this violated his right to due process as he wasn't given notice or an opportunity for hearing before interception occurred. However, the court held that since there were adequate opportunities for him to contest both paternity and amount of support ordered at state level proceedings when they were initially determined, no additional procedural protections were required before intercepting tax refunds.

In the dissenting opinion for Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Congressional intent and an overreach into legislative territory. He contended that Congress had intended to protect Social Security benefits from any form of attachment or diversion, including offsetting child support payments. By allowing such offsets, he believed the Court was effectively rewriting legislation rather than interpreting it - a role reserved for Congress alone. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential harm to recipients who rely on these benefits as their primary source of income and warned against setting a precedent where other types of debts could also be collected through this method in future cases.