KING V.

SMITH
392 U.S. 309 (1968)

Parties

Legal Claim/Defense
 ∆’s argument: substitute father regulation defines who is a nonabsent parent under SSA §
406(a).
 State interests are asserted in support of the allocation of AFDC assistance achieved by
the regulation:
o Discourages illicit sexual relationships and illegitimate births
o Puts families in which there is an informal marital relationship on par w/ those in
which there is an ordinary marital relationship, b/c families of latter are not
eligible for AFDC assistance.

Procedural History/Facts
 Alabama had a “substitute father” regulation which denies AFDC payments to children of
a mother who cohabits w/ any man that is not the father.
 Lower court found the regulation to be inconsistent w/ the Social Security Act & the
Equal Protection Clause.
 Regulation caused Mrs. Sylvester Smith and four minor children to lose funding because
Mrs. Smith was having sex w/ Mr. Williams.
 Children’s natural parent died & children have not received parental support from father
since. Mr. Williams has own children and family of his own and does not provide any
support to Mrs. Smith.

Issue
Whether Alabama may deny AFDC assistance to otherwise eligible children because they have
an alleged substitute father.

Holding
No, AL may not deny AFDC assistance to other eligible children because the state’s asserted
interest conflicts with the federal law and policy.

Reasoning
 Children here meet Alabama’s need requirements – substitute father makes no
contribution & have been denied assistance solely on basis of substitute father regulation.