Saenz v. Roe (1999)
Friday, November 27, 2009 at 5:20PM Read the opinion here.
Issue. Is a state law that allows the amount of welfare benefits to be linked to the length of residency in the state constitutional?
Background. California passed a law that limited the amount of welfare benefits its residents could receive if those residents had only resided in the State for less than 12 months. If a family resided in California for less than 12 months, the family would only receive the amount of benefits they would have received in the state of their former residence.
A class action suit by Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the law. Since the Plaintiffs sought an injunction, the merits of the case would effectively be resolved in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction. The District Court, believing that the law violated the Constitution, issued a preliminary injunction. That order was upheld on appeal before both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
Court's Analysis. The Court found that even though there is no specifically defined "right to travel" in the Constitution, such a right is firmly embedded in Constitutional jurisprudence. There are three components to this right: 1.) the right for one to travel to another state; 2.) the right for one to be treated as a welcome visitor, as opposed to an unwanted alien, while temporarily in another state; and 3.) the right to be treated like other residents of a state when one elects to become a permanent resident of that state.
This case involves the third component. The right of a new resident stems not just from the status as a new state citizen, but also as a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment gives any U.S. citizen the right to become the resident of any State and to enjoy the same privileges and immunities as other residents of the State.
People will not come to California just to enjoy welfare benefits which they will take back with them to their former State of residence. They will consume the benefits in California. Further, California's argument that the law is a necessary cost saving measure is without merit. California could save just as much money by cutting 72 cents per month for each welfare recipient without resorting to this discriminatory measure.
Finally, the 14th Amendment does not provide for State citizenship based on the length of residency in the State. This is not a case where out-of-state residents are moving to California just to get a benefit they could not get in their original state with the intention of bringing that benefit back to their original home state (like state university tuition). Therefore, this law is not constitutionally permissible.
Afterword. The 14th Amendment does prevent states from defining their own citizenship requirements. At the same time, there is the issue of fraud, where some individuals will seek residency in a state just for benefits they the individual will use elsewhere. In such cases, durational residency requirements should be allowed. This is not such a case.