King v. Smith
| King v. Smith | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||
| Argued April 23, 1968 Decided June 17, 1968 | ||||||
| Full case name | King, Commissioner, Department of Pensions and Security, et al. v. Smith et al. | |||||
| Citations |
392 U.S. 309 (more) 88 S. Ct. 2128; 20 L. Ed. 2d 1118 | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Aid to Families with Dependent Children cannot be denied to families of qualifying children based on a substitute father. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
| ||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Warren, joined by Black, Harlan II., Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas, Marshall | |||||
| Concurrence | Douglas | |||||
 |
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968), was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) could not be withheld because of the presence of a "substitute father" who visited a family on weekends.
Mrs. Sylvester Smith was an Alabama resident who had four children, without a biological father providing support. The father of three of her children had died and the father of her fourth child was not in the picture. Thus, she qualified for AFDC. She was, however, having an affair with a Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams had nine children of his own. Williams, who visited on weekends, was counted as a "substitute father", thus disqualifying the family for aid. The Court held that the term "father" did not include substitute fathers.
The issue before the US Supreme Court was if the states could determine how to implement a federal program. The court used the term co-operative federalism.