Skip to main content
SCOTUS Case

King v. Smith

Primary source

Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). We link back to the source for attribution; edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.

Background

King v. Smith

This article includes a list of general references , but **it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations **. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (November 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message )

King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968), was a unanimous 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'.

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

**King v. Smith **

Contents

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_v._Smith&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")

Mrs. Sylvester Smith was a Dallas County, 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 according to Alabama Law.

Decision

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_v._Smith&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Decision")

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the term "father" did not include substitute fathers because Williams was under no obligation to support Smith's children. Martin Garbus spoke for the appellees of the case.

References

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_v._Smith&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: References")

  1. West, Guida (1981). The National Welfare Rights Movement : The Social Protest of Poor Women. New York, N.Y: Praeger. pp. 328–345.

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_v._Smith&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_v._Smith&oldid=1351346996 "

Read the full Wikipedia article

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.