Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970)

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Syllabus

Appellees, large-family recipients of benefits under the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, brought this suit to enjoin the application of Maryland’s maximum grant regulation as contravening the Social Security Act of 1935 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the program, which is jointly financed by the Federal and State Governments, a State computes the "standard of need" of eligible family units. Under the Maryland regulation, though most families are provided aid in accordance with the standard of need, a ceiling of about $250 per month is imposed on an AFDC grant regardless of the size of the family and its actual need. The District Court held the regulation "invalid on its face for overreaching," and thus violative of the Equal Protection Clause.

Held:

1. The Maryland regulation is not prohibited by the Social Security Act. Pp. 476-483.

(a) A State has great latitude in dispensing its available funds, King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 318-319, and, given Maryland’s finite resources available for public welfare demands, it is not prevented by the Act from sustaining as many families as it can and providing the largest families with somewhat less than their ascertained per capita standard of need. Pp. 478-480.

(b) The statutory standard in § 402(a)(10) of the Act that aid "shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible indiiduals," is not violated by the regulation, which does not deprive children of the largest families of aid, but reduces the family grant as a whole, and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has approved the Maryland scheme. Pp. 480-482.

(c) In its Social Security Amendments of 1967, Congress fully recognized that maximum grant regulations are permissible. Pp. 482-483.

2. The regulation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 483-487.

(a) The concept of overbreadth, though relevant where First Amendment considerations are involved, is not pertinent to state regulation in the social and economic field. Pp. 484-485.

(b) The regulation is rationally supportable and free from invidious discrimination, since it furthers the State’s legitimate interest in encouraging employment and in maintaining an equitable balance between welfare families and the families of the working poor. Pp. 486-487.

297 F.Supp. 450, reversed.