In the case United States v. Worley, Administratrix, et al., 1929, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a deceased soldier's insurance policy should be paid out to his mother or his wife. The soldier had initially named his mother as beneficiary but later attempted to change it to his wife by writing a letter of intent; however, he died before this change could be officially processed. The lower courts ruled in favor of the mother based on existing law that required changes in beneficiaries to be filed at an office designated by U.S government regulations. However, upon appeal from the wife and her father-in-law (the soldier’s father), who argued that there were exceptions for soldiers serving overseas during wartime due their inability to file paperwork easily under such circumstances - which was applicable here since he served during World War I - , the Supreme Court reversed these decisions and awarded benefits instead to the widow because they found substantial compliance with requirements considering all conditions surrounding him when he made efforts for changing beneficiary.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Worley, it was argued that the government should not be allowed to sue in a state court without its consent. The dissenting justices believed that this principle is fundamental to American federalism and sovereignty of states. They contended that allowing such suits would undermine the independence of individual states within the federation, as well as violate their rights under common law principles which traditionally protect sovereign entities from being sued without their permission. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of an act passed by Congress in 1887 which permitted certain lawsuits against federal officials; arguing instead that this legislation did not extend to allow suits directly against U.S Government itself.