Dandridge v. Williams (1969)
- Docket
- 131
- Decided
- 1969-01-01
- Category
- General
Summary
Question: Did the Maryland mechanism for computing standard of need violate either the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Social Security Act of 1935? Conclusion: No. In a 5-3 opinion authored by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court concluded that the Maryland provision violated neither the Social Security Act nor the Equal Protection Clause. Relying on the precedent set in King v. Smith (1968), which described the program as "a scheme of cooperative federalism" and gave the state "undisputed power" to calculate standard of need, the Court concluded that "nothing in the federal statute…forbids a State to balance the stresses that uniform insufficiency of payments would impose on all families against the greater ability of large families…to accommodate their needs to diminished per capita payments." Similarly, the Court rejected the families' equal protection claim, noting, "[T]he Equal Protection Clause does not require that a State must choose between attacking every aspect of a problem or not attacking the problem at all." Thus, because Maryland's provision was "rationally based and free from invidious discrimination," it was constitutionally valid. Justice Stewart took care to note that while "claims of morality and intelligence are raised by opponents and proponents of almost every measure," the Court could rule a provision invalid based only on its constitutionality, not on its wisdom.