The Court held that provision to be irrelevant to the stated purpose of the statute and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Under Section 3(e) of the Food Stamp Act (7 USC 2012(e)), the term "household" was defined to include only groups whose members were all related to one another.

However, the Court held that the challenged classification, which excludes unrelated household members, did not rationally further the goal of preventing fraud.

However, the classification acted to exclude not only those who were likely to abuse the program but also those who were in need of the aid but could not afford to alter their living arrangements so as to retain their eligibility.

The Court held that the "unrelated person" provision was irrelevant to the stated purpose of the Food Stamp Act.

He believed that since the unrelated-person provision of Section 3(e) affected people's First Amendment rights of association, the classification could only be sustained by showing compelling governmental interests.

In an opinion joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, he believed the limitation that Congress enacted in Section 3(e) could, in the judgment of reasonable men, conceivably deny food stamps to members of households formed solely for the purpose of taking advantage of the food stamp program.