The U.S. Supreme Court case Wyman, Commissioner of New York Department of Social Services, et al. v. James in 1970 centered around the issue of home visits by social workers to welfare recipients as a condition for receiving aid. The respondent, Mrs. James, was a mother on public assistance who refused unannounced home visits from caseworkers and subsequently had her benefits terminated due to non-compliance with this requirement under state law. Mrs. James argued that these mandatory inspections violated her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures since they were conducted without consent or warrant based on probable cause. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr.Wyman (the petitioner), stating that such visits did not constitute 'searches' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because their primary purpose was administrative rather than investigatory - intended to ensure welfare funds are properly used and children's needs met rather than uncovering criminal activity. Moreover, it held that while individuals have a right to privacy at home; accepting public assistance comes with certain conditions including allowing caseworker visitations which do not infringe upon constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Wyman v. James, Justice Black argued that home visits by social workers are not unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. He contended that these visits serve a vital purpose in ensuring welfare funds are used appropriately and children's needs are met, which is crucial to maintaining public confidence in welfare programs. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view of such visits as "intrusive", stating they were more akin to friendly calls than police raids. He also noted that recipients could refuse entry without fear of criminal penalties; only their benefits might be affected - an administrative rather than punitive consequence. In his view, this case was about balancing individual privacy against societal interests in preventing fraud and protecting vulnerable children – a balance he believed should tilt towards society’s interests given the non-punitive nature of potential consequences for refusal.