KING v. SMITH Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court invalidated Alabama’s “substitute father” regulation, which denied welfare benefits to children whose mothers cohabited with men. The Court held the state rule was inconsistent with the federal Social Security Act, which bases eligibility on the absence of a legally responsible parent.
Legal Significance: In a cooperative federalism program, a state cannot impose eligibility requirements that are inconsistent with the definitions and paramount objectives of the governing federal statute. States may not redefine federal statutory terms to exclude otherwise eligible beneficiaries based on policies Congress has rejected.
KING v. SMITH Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Alabama participated in the federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, established by the Social Security Act. The Act provided funds for needy children deprived of support due to a “parent’s” death, incapacity, or continued absence. Alabama enacted a “substitute father” regulation that denied AFDC benefits to children of a mother who cohabited with any able-bodied man, regardless of whether he was the children’s father, was legally obligated to support them, or actually provided any support. Appellee Mrs. Smith, a mother of four, had her AFDC benefits terminated under this regulation because she had a relationship with a Mr. Williams, who visited on weekends. Mr. Williams was not the father of Mrs. Smith’s children, was not legally obligated to support them under Alabama law, and did not in fact support them. The state argued the regulation was a valid way to allocate limited resources and discourage immorality. The District Court found the regulation invalid under both the Social Security Act and the Equal Protection Clause.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a state regulation that terminates Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits for children based on their mother’s cohabitation with a man who has no legal duty to support them invalid because it conflicts with the Social Security Act?
Yes. The Alabama “substitute father” regulation is invalid because it defines “parent” Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit i
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is a state regulation that terminates Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits for children based on their mother’s cohabitation with a man who has no legal duty to support them invalid because it conflicts with the Social Security Act?
Conclusion
This case establishes that state agencies administering cooperative federalism programs must adhere Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ve
Legal Rule
Under § 406(a) of the Social Security Act, the term "parent" whose Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat null
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded on two primary grounds, both rooted in statutory Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis no
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Alabama’s “substitute father” rule denied AFDC benefits to children if their