Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Appellees, large-family recipients of benefits under the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program, brought this suit to enjoin the application of Maryland's maximum grant regulation as contravening the Social Security Act of 1935 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The standard of, "shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals," laid out in the Social Security Act was not found to penalize large families, but instead to reduce all family grants, no matter the size.

The Court also cited King v. Smith[3] as an example of how a state can appropriate funds, saying they recognize that Maryland is doing all they can in order to provide as much welfare as they can, therefore they are not violating the Social Security Act of 1935.

[4] In his concurrence, Justice Hugo Black added the point that as long as the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare recognizes that a state is doing all that it can in allocation, then that state can not be held liable for such low appropriations.