In the 1969 Supreme Court case Dandridge, Chairman, Maryland Board of Public Welfare v. Williams et al., the court ruled in favor of a state regulation that set a maximum limit on welfare benefits regardless of family size. The plaintiffs were families with dependent children who argued that this cap violated their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because it disproportionately affected larger families. However, the majority opinion held that states have broad discretion when making decisions about how to allocate limited resources for public assistance programs and found no constitutional violation in setting an upper limit on aid payments. This decision was significant as it upheld states' power to regulate social welfare policies even if they result in unequal treatment.

In the Dandridge v. Williams case, Justice Marshall dissented, arguing that Maryland's maximum grant regulation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He believed that this cap on welfare benefits disproportionately affected larger families and was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. According to him, it was unreasonable for Maryland to argue that limiting aid would encourage employment or prevent fraud because there were other ways to achieve these goals without harming needy families. Furthermore, he argued that such regulations could perpetuate poverty by denying children in large families equal opportunities for health and education. Thus, he concluded that any classification which serves to penalize the existence of more than a specified number of needy persons in a family is contrary to American traditions and violates equality guaranteed by the Constitution.