King v. Smith Et Al‪.‬

Alabama, together with every other State, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and Guam, participates in the Federal Governments Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was established by the Social Security Act of 1935. 49 Stat. 620, as amended, 42 U. S. C. ?? 301-1394. This appeal presents the question whether a regulation of the Alabama Department of Pensions and Security, employed in that Departments administration of the States federally funded AFDC program, is consistent with Subchapter IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. ?? 601-609, and with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At issue is the validity of Alabamas so-called "substitute father" regulation which denies AFDC payments to the children of a mother who "cohabits" in or outside her home with any single or married able-bodied man. Appellees brought this class action against appellants, officers, and members of the Alabama Board of Pensions and Security, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, under 42 U. S. C. ? 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. A properly convened three-judge District