Dandridge v. Williams: Equal Protection and Welfare Law
Introduction
Dandridge v. Williams represents a reversal in the line of recent cases exemplified by King v. Smith and Shapiro v. Thompson, which declared invalid state statutes denying “eligible individuals” the right to receive payments under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC). In Dandridge, the Supreme Court held that the State of Maryland’s maximum grant regulation is a permissible device under AFDC for limiting welfare payments, and that this regulation does not constitute a denial of equal protection under the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution.
The specific regulation challenged in Dandridge v. Williams, places a ceiling on the amount of assistance received by any family participating in the Maryland AFDC program. The initiators of the suit were AFDC recipients with large families. Their standard of need exceeded the, maximum level of benefits granted under the Maryland AFDC formula. They instituted the action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to enjoin the application of the Maryland maximum grant regulation on the grounds that it is in conflict with the Social Security Act of 1935, and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment.
Suggested Reading
Child Support for Welfare Families: Family Policy Trapped in Its Own Rhetoric
Explores the flaws of the child support system. Duscusses the social benefit of child support and analyses alternative child support mechanisms.
Federal Welfare Reform in Light of the California Experience: Early Lessons for State Implementation of the Jobs Program
Suggestions states can take to avail themselves of the Family Support Act's opportunities and to avoid its pitfalls, using a California program as an example.
Maintaining Procedural Protections for Welfare Recipients: Defining Property for the Due Process Clause
Review of due process and its applicability to benefits litigation. Proposed doctrinal solution in how interprets interests and property.
Ruiz v. Morton: BIA Welfare Extended to All American Indians
Discussion of the relationship between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and American Indians, especially in the welfare context, through the lens of Ruiz v. Morton.