In the case of Trainor, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid, et al. v. Hernandez et ux., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether a state could use prejudgment attachment procedures to recover welfare payments that were fraudulently obtained without violating due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held in a 6-3 decision that such actions did not violate due process rights as long as there was an opportunity for a prompt post-seizure hearing where defendants could challenge the validity of the seizure and raise any defenses they might have to repayment. The respondents had received public assistance from Illinois but failed to report additional income which would have reduced their benefits eligibility. When this was discovered by authorities, they sought recovery through prejudgment attachment - seizing property before judgment is rendered in a lawsuit - without providing prior notice or hearing. Justice William Rehnquist delivered majority opinion stating that while individuals do possess some property interest in possession and control over their personal assets, these interests are far outweighed by state's significant interest in recovering wrongfully paid funds promptly.

In the dissenting opinion of Trainor v. Hernandez, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's ruling that Illinois' ex parte attachment procedure did not violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that this practice was unconstitutional as it allowed for a prejudgment seizure of property without notice or an opportunity to be heard in court. Brennan contended that such seizures could cause significant harm and hardship to individuals who were deprived of their assets before having a chance to defend themselves legally. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on Mitchell v. W.T Grant Co., stating it was wrongly decided and should not serve as precedent for allowing states to seize property without prior hearing or adequate safeguards against wrongful deprivation.