In the United States v. Swank et al., 1980, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving federal funding for higher education and its relationship with state residency requirements. The court held that an Illinois statute which required students to reside in the state for six months before being eligible for financial aid was not inconsistent with Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. This act provides federal funds to states under certain conditions, one of which is that no student may be denied benefits or subjected to discrimination under any such program because of their residence within any State or political subdivision thereof. The plaintiffs argued this provision preempted Illinois' residency requirement but were unsuccessful as it was found not discriminatory since it applied equally to all applicants regardless of where they lived previously.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Swank et al., 1980, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 402(a)(25) was too narrow and failed to consider Congress' intent in enacting this provision. He believed that Congress intended to prevent states from reducing their welfare payments due to federal benefits received by recipients under other programs, including Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). The majority’s decision allowed Illinois to reduce its assistance payments because SSDI benefits were not explicitly mentioned in Section 402(a)(25), but Blackmun contended this approach ignored the broader purpose of preventing states from using federal aid as an excuse for cutting back on state assistance. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies between the court's ruling and previous decisions regarding similar issues with different types of federal aid. In conclusion, Justice Blackmun felt that allowing states such as Illinois to offset their own welfare spending with SSDI funds undermined both Congressional intent and principles of statutory interpretation.