Summary

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Dandridge v. Williams — Opinion of the Court

We do not decide today that the Maryland regulation is wise, that it best fulfills the relevant social and economic objectives that Maryland might ideally espouse, or that a more just and humane system could not be devised. Conflicting claims of morality and intelligence are raised by opponents and proponents of almost every measure, certainly including the one before us. But the intractable economic, social, and even philosophical problems presented by public welfare assistance programs are not the business of this Court.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Dandridge v. Williams — Opinion of the Court

We see nothing in the federal statute that forbids a State to balance the stresses that uniform insufficiency of payments would impose on all families against the greater ability of large families-because of the inherent economies of scale-to accommodate their needs to diminished per capita payments. The strong policy of the statute in favor of preserving family units does not prevent a State from sustaining as many families as it can, and providing the largest families somewhat less than their ascertained per capita standard of need.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Dandridge v. Williams — Opinion of the Court

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. If the classification has some 'reasonable basis,' it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification 'is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.' Lindsley v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature