In Wissner v. Wissner, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California law could not supersede federal legislation regarding life insurance policies for military personnel. The case arose when a deceased soldier's wife and mother disputed over his life insurance benefits payout from his National Service Life Insurance policy, which he had designated to go solely to his mother before marrying. Under California community property laws, the wife claimed she was entitled to half of her late husband's assets including the insurance money; however, under federal law governing these specific policies (National Service Life Insurance Act), only named beneficiaries were eligible recipients - in this case being the soldier’s mother as per original designation by him prior to marriage. The court held that federal law took precedence over state law in this matter due its supremacy clause within constitution and thus upheld lower courts' decisions awarding all proceeds exclusively to decedent’s mother as originally intended by him while designating beneficiary.

In the dissenting opinion for Wissner v. Wissner, Justice Frankfurter argued that Congress did not intend to exclude servicemen's life insurance from marital property when it passed the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940. He believed that the majority misinterpreted this legislation by asserting such an exclusion and contended that there was no clear evidence in either the language or legislative history of the act to support their interpretation. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how federal laws relating to military benefits were applied across different states due to varying state laws on community property rights. In his view, these discrepancies undermined uniformity and fairness in dealing with military families' financial affairs nationwide. Therefore, he disagreed with denying a deceased serviceman's wife her share of his life insurance proceeds based solely on who was named as beneficiary under California law.