InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Dandridge, Chairman, Maryland Board of Public Welfare, et al. v. Williams et al.

The Court held that a state can cap welfare based on the Aid to Families with Dependent Children at $250.00 per month regardless of the family's size or need.

397 U.S. 471 · No. 131 · 1969 term · Burger Court

Decided Apr 6, 1970 · argued Dec 9, 1969

Civil rights · Poverty law, constitutional

Majority opinion: Potter Stewart

The voteMajorityDissent

5–35 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Reversed. Dandridge, Chairman, Maryland Board of Public Welfare, et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Maryland U.S. District Court, and its own ruling ends the case.

Dandridge, Chairman, Maryland Board of Public Welfare, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It held that a state can cap welfare based on the Aid to Families with Dependent Children at $250.00 per month regardless of the family's size or need. The plaintiffs were attempting to make the amount variable based on size.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1969 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasMarshallBrennanBlackWhiteStewartHarlanBurger

Majority(5)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Dandridge, Chairman, Maryland Board of Public Welfare, et al.State (Maryland)
Respondent
Williams et al.Indigent, needy, welfare recipient
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Aid to Families with Dependent Children provisions of the Social Security Act, plus amendments
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Apr 6, 1970DecidedDecided · Decided 5–3: reversed. Dandridge, Chairman, Maryland Board of Public Welfare, et al. won.
  2. Dec 9, 1969ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Maryland U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

33 other argued cases since 1946 on poverty law, constitutional, newest first.

  1. United States v. Vaello Madero142 S. Ct. 1539Apr 21, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1539Civil rights8–18–1 band

  2. Toby Douglas, Director, California Department of Health Care Services, Petitioner v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc., et al.565 U.S. 606Feb 22, 2012 · 565 U.S. 606Civil rights5–45–4 band

  3. Kadrmas et al. v. Dickinson Public Schools et al.487 U.S. 450Jun 24, 1988 · 487 U.S. 450Civil rights5–45–4 band
  4. Richard A. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture v. International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, et al.485 U.S. 360Mar 23, 1988 · 485 U.S. 360Civil rights5–36–3 band

  5. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Gilliard et al.483 U.S. 587Jun 25, 1987 · 483 U.S. 587Civil rights6–36–3 band
  6. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture v. Castillo et al.477 U.S. 635Jun 27, 1986 · 477 U.S. 635Civil rights6–36–3 band

  7. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Owens et al.476 U.S. 340May 19, 1986 · 476 U.S. 340Civil rights6–36–3 band
  8. Green et al. v. Mansour, Director, Michigan Department of Social Services474 U.S. 64Dec 3, 1985 · 474 U.S. 64Civil rights5–45–4 band
  9. Blum, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al. v. Yaretsky et al.457 U.S. 991Jun 25, 1982 · 457 U.S. 991Civil rights7–27–2 band
  10. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Hogan et al.457 U.S. 569Jun 21, 1982 · 457 U.S. 569Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  11. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Wilson et al.450 U.S. 221Mar 4, 1981 · 450 U.S. 221Civil rights5–45–4 band
  12. United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz449 U.S. 166Dec 9, 1980 · 449 U.S. 166Civil rights7–27–2 band

  13. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Westcott et al.443 U.S. 76Jun 25, 1979 · 443 U.S. 76Civil rights5–45–4 band
  14. Quern, Director, Department of Public Aid of Illinois v. Jordan440 U.S. 332Mar 5, 1979 · 440 U.S. 332Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  15. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Aznavorian439 U.S. 170Dec 11, 1978 · 439 U.S. 170Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  16. Zablocki, Milwaukee County Clerk v. Redhail434 U.S. 374Jan 18, 1978 · 434 U.S. 374Civil rights8–18–1 band

  17. Califano, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Jobst434 U.S. 47Nov 8, 1977 · 434 U.S. 47Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  18. Knebel, Secretary of Agriculture v. Hein429 U.S. 288Jan 11, 1977 · 429 U.S. 288Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  19. Lavine, Commissioner, Department of Social Services of New York v. Milne et al.424 U.S. 577Mar 3, 1976 · 424 U.S. 577Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
  20. Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. EldridgeLandmark · Fourteenth Amendment rights424 U.S. 319Feb 24, 1976 · 424 U.S. 319Civil rights6–27–2 band

  21. Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al. v. Salfi et al.422 U.S. 749Jun 26, 1975 · 422 U.S. 749Civil rights6–36–3 band
  22. Edelman, Director, Department of Public Aid of Illinois v. Jordan415 U.S. 651Mar 25, 1974 · 415 U.S. 651Civil rights5–45–4 band

  23. United States Department of Agriculture et al. v. Moreno et al.413 U.S. 528Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 528Civil rights7–27–2 band

  24. United States Department of Agriculture et al. v. Murry et al.413 U.S. 508Jun 25, 1973 · 413 U.S. 508Civil rights5–45–4 band
  25. San Antonio Independent School District et al. v. Rodriguez et al.Landmark · Fourteenth Amendment rights411 U.S. 1Mar 21, 1973 · 411 U.S. 1Civil rights5–45–4 band

  26. Jefferson et al. v. Hackney, Commissioner of Public Welfare, et al.406 U.S. 535May 30, 1972 · 406 U.S. 535Civil rights5–45–4 band
  27. Townsend et al. v. Swank, Director, Department of Public Aid of Illinois, et al.404 U.S. 282Dec 20, 1971 · 404 U.S. 282Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
  28. Richardson, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Belcher404 U.S. 78Nov 22, 1971 · 404 U.S. 78Civil rights4–36–3 band
  29. James et al. v. Valtierra et al.402 U.S. 137Apr 26, 1971 · 402 U.S. 137Civil rights5–36–3 band
  30. Wyman, Commissioner of Social Services of New York, et al. v. Rothstein et al.398 U.S. 275Jun 1, 1970 · 398 U.S. 275Civil rights5–27–2 band
  31. Wheeler et al. v. Montgomery, Director, Department of Social Welfare of California, et al.397 U.S. 280Mar 23, 1970 · 397 U.S. 280Civil rights5–36–3 band
  32. Goldberg, Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York v. Kelly et al.Landmark · Fourteenth Amendment rights397 U.S. 254Mar 23, 1970 · 397 U.S. 254Civil rights5–36–3 band

  33. Shapiro, Commissioner of Welfare of Connecticut v. ThompsonLandmark · Freedom of movement394 U.S. 618Apr 21, 1969 · 394 U.S. 618Civil rights6–36–3 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.