397 U.S. 471 (1970)
Maryland participates in the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children program under the Social Security Act of 1935.1 The state computes a standard of need for each eligible family that increases with family size, though increments become proportionately smaller.2 Through an administrative regulation in force since 1947, Maryland imposes an upper limit on the total monthly grant any single family may receive: $250 in Baltimore City and counties under Plan A, and $240 elsewhere under Plan B.3
Several AFDC recipients in Baltimore with large families brought suit challenging the regulation.4 Appellee Williams, for example, had a computed need of $296.15 per month for herself and eight children but received only the $250 maximum.5 Appellees Gary had a computed need of $331.50 for themselves and eight children but likewise received only $250. The recipients alleged that the regulation discriminated against larger families by reducing per capita benefits as family size increased.6
The suit was filed in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.7 A three-judge district court first held that the regulation conflicted with the Social Security Act and also violated the Equal Protection Clause.8 On reconsideration, the court rested its invalidity determination solely on the constitutional ground and enjoined enforcement of the maximum.9 The state officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, and the Court noted probable jurisdiction.10
The parties stipulated that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare had approved Maryland's welfare plan, including its maximum grant provisions, on numerous occasions.11 A majority of states impose some form of maximum on family grants, and twenty states use family maximums of the type at issue here.12 The regulation permits recipients to retain a portion of outside earnings without reduction in the grant and requires recipients to seek and accept available employment.13
Whether Maryland's maximum grant regulation in its AFDC program conflicts with the Social Security Act, including the requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(10) that aid be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals?14
No. Maryland's maximum grant regulation does not conflict with the Social Security Act.17 States have considerable latitude in allocating their AFDC resources. The practical effect of the regulation is that all children even in very large families do receive some aid.18 Congress has fully recognized that the Act permits maximum grant regulations.19
Maryland's maximum grant regulation is consistent with the Social Security Act.20
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Douglas dissents on statutory grounds.21
He concludes that the Maryland regulation is inconsistent with the Social Security Act because it denies benefits to additional children born into families of six or more.22
The regulation creates a powerful economic incentive for parents to place excess children with other relatives to obtain additional payments.23
This result conflicts with the Act's core purpose of keeping dependent children with their mothers in their own homes.24
Douglas emphasizes that Congress intended aid to reach each eligible individual recipient rather than allowing family-wide ceilings that arbitrarily exclude some needy children from any incremental assistance.25
Joined by Justice Brennan
Justice Marshall dissents on the statutory ground as well.26
He argues that the maximum grant regulation refuses aid to the fifth or any succeeding child in a family who meet the state's own standards of need.27
The regulation creates two classes of needy children and conflicts directly with the statutory command that aid be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.28
Marshall notes that the federal matching formula continues to subsidize states for every dependent child even when the state withholds incremental payments from large families.29
This produces an incongruous result that Congress could not have intended when it required payments with respect to each recipient.30
Whether the maximum grant regulation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating a classification based on family size?31
In the area of economics and social welfare a state does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect.32 If the classification has some reasonable basis it does not offend the Constitution simply because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.33
No. The maximum grant regulation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.34 In the area of economics and social welfare a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. The regulation is rationally related to legitimate interests in encouraging employment and allocating limited resources.35
The maximum grant regulation satisfies rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.36
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan dissents from the equal protection holding.37
He views the regulation as creating a classification that is not rationally related to any legitimate governmental objective.38
The regulation penalizes families for having more children by reducing per capita grants as family size increases.39
Brennan concludes that the state's interest in conserving its welfare budget cannot justify imposing a ceiling that bears no relationship to actual need.40
He would hold the regulation unconstitutional because it affects the most basic human needs of impoverished children.41
Joined by The Chief Justice
Justice Black concurs in the opinion of the Court.42
He assumes that individual welfare recipients can bring an action against state welfare authorities challenging an aspect of the state's welfare plan as inconsistent with the Social Security Act.43 This holds even though the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has determined that the federal and state provisions are consistent.44
Black joins the Court's resolution on that basis without further elaboration on the merits of the equal protection claim.45
Justice Harlan concurs in the Court's opinion with one reservation.46
He emphasizes that equal protection imposes a standard of rationality of classification that does not depend upon the nature of the classification or interest involved.47
Harlan rejects any distinction between strict scrutiny for fundamental rights and mere rationality for economic interests.48
He joins the constitutional holding solely on the ground that the regulation satisfies the traditional rationality standard applicable to all classifications except those based on race.49