1 minute read

Dandridge v. Williams - Significance, Welfare Regulation

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972

Appellant

Edmund P. Dandridge, Jr., et al.

Appellee

Linda Williams et al.

Appellant's Claim

That the Maryland maximum grant regulation was in conflict with the Federal Social Security Act and with equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Lawyer for Appellant

George W. Liebmann

Chief Lawyer for Appellee

Joseph A. Matera

Justices for the Court

Hugo Lafayette Black, Warren E. Burger, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart (writing for the Court), Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall (Harry A. Blackmun had not yet been appointed to the Court)

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

6 April 1970

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the regulation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and reversed the lower court's decision.

Related Cases

  • Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971).
  • San Antonio Independent School District, et al. v. Demetrio P. Rodriguez, et al., 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
  • Gurley v. Wohlgemuth, 421 F.Supp. 1337 (1976).
  • Joyner v. Dumpson, 533 F.Supp. 233 (1982).
  • Daugherty v. Wallace, 621 N.E. 2d 1374 (1993).

Sources

Wolch, Jennifer R. "America's New Urban Policy: Welfare Reform and the Fate of American Cities," Journal of the American Planning Association. Winter 1998.

Further Readings

  • Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt, eds. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.

Additional topics