King v. Smith
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. The issue before the US Supreme Court involved how the states could determine how to implement a federal program. The court used the term "co-operative federalism." Shapiro v. Thompson, King v. Smith and Goldberg v. Kelly were a set of successful Supreme Court cases that dealt with Welfare, specifically referred to as a part of 'The Welfare Cases'.
| King v. Smith | |
|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States | |
| 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; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1139 |
| 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, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas, Marshall |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.