The U.S. Supreme Court case Sullivan v. Stroop (1989) revolved around the interpretation of a provision in the Social Security Act that allowed children to receive benefits if their parents were disabled, retired or deceased, and they were not high school students. The respondents, who represented a class of Virginia public assistance recipients whose Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits had been reduced due to these Social Security Benefits, argued that GED programs should be considered as "full-time attendance at a secondary school". However, the Secretary of Health and Human Services disagreed stating that such programs do not meet this requirement under federal law. The court ruled in favor of Louis W. Sullivan upholding his interpretation by 5-4 majority vote. It concluded that Congress intended for 'secondary school' to mean grade-based traditional institutions rather than individualized instruction like GED programs when it wrote the statute into law.

In the dissenting opinion for Sullivan v. Stroop, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's interpretation of "dependent child" in relation to AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) was too narrow and not consistent with Congressional intent. He believed that Congress intended a broader definition of dependency when it came to children who were receiving support from noncustodial parents through Social Security benefits. The majority’s decision would result in these children losing their eligibility for AFDC assistance, which he felt was contrary to the purpose of the program - providing aid for needy families. Furthermore, he criticized the court's reliance on an administrative regulation rather than statutory language or legislative history as a basis for its decision.