King v. Smith

1968-06-17

Headline: Court invalidates Alabama’s ‘substitute father’ rule, blocking denial of AFDC payments when a mother cohabits and restoring federal welfare eligibility for legally fatherless families.

Holding: The Court held that Alabama’s substitute-father regulation conflicts with the Social Security Act because the term “parent” requires a legal duty of support, so needy children without legally obligated fathers must remain eligible for AFDC.

Real World Impact:

Stops states from denying AFDC solely for a mother’s cohabitation.
Restores federal welfare eligibility to children without legally obligated fathers.
Affirms HEW’s authority to enforce AFDC rules and withhold funds for noncompliance.

Topics: welfare benefits, child support and paternity, family cohabitation rules, federal oversight of states, child welfare

Summary

Background

A mother and her four children in Dallas County, Alabama, were removed from AFDC rolls after county officials applied a state “substitute father” rule that disqualified families whenever the mother cohabited with any able-bodied man. The man involved was not the children’s father, not legally required to support them, and did not actually provide support. A three-judge federal district court declared the regulation inconsistent with federal law, and the State appealed.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Alabama regulation fit the Social Security Act’s definition of a “dependent child” who has been deprived of parental support. The majority read the statute to mean that a person is a “parent” for AFDC purposes only if the person has a legal duty to support the child. Because Alabama’s rule treated unrelated cohabitants as parents based solely on sexual cohabitation, regardless of any legal duty or actual support, the Court held the regulation conflicted with the federal statute and program policy.

Real world impact

The decision requires Alabama to restore aid to otherwise eligible children who lack a legally obligated father while the State participates in AFDC. It also reinforces HEW’s role in approving state AFDC plans and the federal power to condition matching funds on compliance. The ruling rests on the statute rather than the Constitution, and the Court noted a State might try to revive such a rule only by rejecting federal funds.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas concurred, agreeing with the result but arguing the rule also violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it punished children for their mother’s private behavior.