This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Saenz v. Roe: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|procedural_history=Sáenz, Director of the California Department of Social Services, loses at the federal district court in California. | |procedural_history=Sáenz, Director of the California Department of Social Services, loses at the federal district court in California. | ||
|holding=The state statute of California imposing a durational residency requirement to limit welfare benefits goes against the "[[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Section_1_.28Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause.29|privileges or immunities]]" in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 2. | |holding=The state statute of California imposing a durational residency requirement to limit welfare benefits goes against the "[[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Section_1_.28Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause.29|privileges or immunities]]" in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 2. | ||
|reasons=The right to travel among states is a fundamental right of US citizens. | |||
|rule=SCOTUS hasn't struck down other in-state benefits such as in-state tuition at public universities. | |||
The "privileges or immunities" in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 2 is somewhat nuanced based on how SCOTUS members feel at a time. | |||
|comments=*[[Constitutional_Law_Maggs/4th_ed._Outline_II#Saenz_v._Roe_.281999.29]] | |comments=*[[Constitutional_Law_Maggs/4th_ed._Outline_II#Saenz_v._Roe_.281999.29]] | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
Revision as of 20:11, December 27, 2022
| Saenz v. Roe | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | May 17, 1999 |
Facts
In the 1990s, California had the most generous welfare benefits in the United States.
Citizens had to meet a 1-year residency requirement to receive the level of benefits which California was doling out.Procedural History
Sáenz, Director of the California Department of Social Services, loses at the federal district court in California.
Holding
The state statute of California imposing a durational residency requirement to limit welfare benefits goes against the "privileges or immunities" in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 2.
Reasons
The right to travel among states is a fundamental right of US citizens.
Rule
SCOTUS hasn't struck down other in-state benefits such as in-state tuition at public universities.
The "privileges or immunities" in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 2 is somewhat nuanced based on how SCOTUS members feel at a time.
