In 1992, CA enacted a statute limiting the maximum welfare benefits available to newly arrived residents.
It limited the amount payable to a family that has resided in the state for less than 12 months to the amount payable by the state of the family's prior residence.
Welfare recipients filed suit asking the law to be found unconstitutional.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for P, law unconstitutional.
COA affirmed, law unconstitutional.
SCOTUS affirmed, law unconstitutional.
Issues:
Can the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment be used to invalidate a state law?
Holding/Rule:
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment may be used to invalidate the state law here since it abridges a fundamental right, the right to travel.
Reasoning:
It has always been held (even in the Slaughterhouse Cases) that the PoIC of the 14th amendment protects an individual's right to travel. With regard to travel, it protects…
The right to enter one state & leave another;
The right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger;
For those who want to become permanent residents, the right to be treated equally to native born citizens.
Here, this is the right that is being abridged by the state law.
Since the right to travel embraces the citizen's right to be treated equally in his new state of residence, the discriminatory classification is itself a penalty.
These classifications may not be justified by a purpose to deter welfare applicants from migrating to CA.
There may be a less discriminatory way to get at the problem of high welfare costs.
Dissent:
Rehnquist
The PoIC has not been used to strike down a law, ever. (was used one time but was overruled 5 years later). This does not follow precedent.
This is a reasonable measure falling under the head of a good-faith residency requirement.
Thomas
The majority attributes a meaning to the PoIC that was likely unintended when the 14th amendment was enacted and ratified.
The Slaughterhouse Cases sapped that clause of all meaning. The majority fails to address the historical underpinnings of the clause.
I would be open to reevaluating the meaning of the clause in an appropriate case. However, it is obvious that it should not be used to create new rights.
