King v. Smith
United States Supreme Court
392 U.S. 309 (1968)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
The Social Security Act of 1935 established the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program to reduce child poverty. The AFDC program provided aid to dependent children who had a parent who was continually absent from the home. The Alabama Department of Pensions and Security promulgated a regulation that denied AFDC payments to needy children if the children’s mother cohabited (i.e., engaged in sexual relations) with a substitute father. The man could be any single or married able-bodied man. The cohabiting could take place inside or outside the children’s home. The man did not need to have a parental duty to support the children or the ability to provide financial support. The purpose of the rule was to discourage immorality and illegitimacy among mothers. Sylvester Smith (plaintiff) was the mother of four children. The children’s fathers were either dead or completely absent. The children were eligible for aid but for the substitute-father regulation. Smith’s children were denied aid because a married man, Williams, had gone to Smith’s home on weekends to engage in sexual relations. Williams was not the father of any of the children, was not legally obligated to support any of the children, and was not willing or able to support them. Local authorities determined the Smith family was ineligible for AFDC funds due to the presence of a substitute father. The determination was appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Warren, C.J.)
Concurrence (Douglas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.