The Supreme Court case Smith, Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration, et al. v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform et al., 1976 revolved around the rights and procedures related to foster care placements in New York State. The Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform (OFFER) argued that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required a hearing before a child could be removed from a long-term foster home because such homes were "family" within the meaning of this constitutional protection. However, the court ruled against OFFER by stating that while some foster families may come to feel like traditional families over time, they are not equivalent under law as their existence is facilitated by state action and contractual agreement rather than biological or adoptive ties. Therefore, procedural safeguards beyond those already provided by New York State - which included notice to all parties involved and an opportunity for review - were not constitutionally mandated.

In the dissenting opinion for Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, Justice Brennan argued that foster families should have due process rights before children are removed from their care. He believed that a child's removal could cause significant psychological harm to both the child and the foster parents, which warranted legal protection. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that biological ties were paramount in determining family status under law; instead, he emphasized emotional bonds formed over time as equally important. He also criticized New York’s procedures for removing children from foster homes as inadequate because they did not provide an opportunity for hearing or review prior to removal except in cases of immediate danger. In his view, this violated principles of fairness and due process enshrined in Fourteenth Amendment.