Dandridge v. Williams

Public welfare assistance programs for the nation's poor have been controversial since before the 1930s Great Depression era, when they were largely operated by state and local governments. Guided by ideals of individualism and self-reliance, welfare benefits are commonly viewed as a privilege, not a right. With rapid expansion of the federal welfare system following passage of the Social Security Act in 1935, many grew to consider welfare benefits to be entitlements.

Under extensive federal oversight, states attempted to locally regulate welfare programs in the 1950s and 1960s through residency requirements, illegitimate children restrictions, and other means. Such efforts were routinely deemed in violation of federal equal protection guarantees. By the 1970s, states were required to provide food stamp and Medicaid programs but were free to determine recipients' eligibility. Similarly, federal public housing programs consistently relied on local administration. In the 1980s, states began to assume greater freedom to enforce work requirements on welfare recipients.

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, better known as the Welfare Reform Act, more fully returned regulation of welfare programs to state and local governments. With limited financial resources, states developed new welfare plans under substantially less federal oversight to meet the demands of their needy citizens.