Saenz v. Roe
Encyclopedia
Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489
(1999), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
discussed whether there is a constitutional right to travel from one state to another.
enacted a statute
limiting the maximum welfare benefits available to newly arrived residents. At the time, California was paying the sixth-largest welfare benefits in the United States. In a move to reduce the state welfare budget, the California State Legislature
enacted a statute (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. §11450.03) to limit new residents, for the first year they live in the state, to the benefits they would have received in the state of their prior residence. For the state to comply with the then-existent Aid to Families with Dependent Children
program, it needed a waiver from the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS) in order to qualify for federal reimbursement. Louis Wade Sullivan
, who was HHS Secretary at that point, granted his approval in October 1992.
On December 21, 1992, three California residents who were eligible for AFDC benefits filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
, challenging the constitutionality of the durational residency requirement. All of the plaintiffs had alleged that they had moved into California to escape abusive family situations
. The District Court judge temporarily enjoined
the state from enforcing the statute, and the state petitioned the court for certiorari
. But in a separate proceeding, the HHS Secretary's approval of the statute was invalidated, so the Court did not reach the merits of the case.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
(PRWORA) into law, creating the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) program, and expressly permitted states to limit aid to people who had been residents for less than a year. No longer requiring the approval of federal authorities, California began enforcing the statute.
judge, David F. Levi
(now Dean of Duke Law School), certified the case as a class action
and issued a preliminary injunction
. While the state argued that the statute was a legitimate use of its police powers (because it was largely a budgetary measure), Judge Levi still found for the plaintiffs and enjoined enforcement of the statute, on the grounds that it discriminated between newcomers to the state and long-time residents. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed.
, writing for the majority, found that although the "right to travel" was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution
, the concept was "firmly embedded in our jurisprudence." He described three components of the right to travel:
Because the statute did not directly impair entry or exit from the state, Stevens declined to discuss the first aspect of the right to travel although he did mention that the right was expressly mentioned in the Articles of Confederation
. He briefly described the scope of the Art. IV Privileges and Immunities Clause
, but the main focus of his opinion was the application of the Fourteenth Amendment
. For the proposition that this amendment protected a citizen's right to resettle in other states, Stevens cited the majority opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases
:
Justice Stevens further held in Sáenz that it was irrelevant that the statute only minimally impaired the plaintiffs' right to travel. The plaintiffs were new to the state of California, but they had the right to be treated the same as long-time residents, especially given that their need for welfare benefits was unrelated to the amount of time they had spent in the state. Furthermore, wrote Stevens, there was no reason for the state to fear that citizens of other states would take advantage of California's relatively generous welfare benefits because the proceeds of each welfare check would be consumed while the plaintiffs remained within the state. This distinguishes them from a "readily portable benefit, such as a divorce or a college education", for which durational residency requirements had been upheld in cases such as Sosna v. Iowa and Vlandis v. Kline.
California justified the statute solely on fiscal grounds, and Stevens held that this justification was insufficient. The state could have found another non-discriminatory way to reduce welfare costs, other than conditioning the welfare benefit amounts of new residents by reference to their length of stay within the state, or their state of prior residence. Moreover, the fact that PRWORA authorized states to set their own benefit levels did not assist in the determining the constitutionality of the state statute because Congress
cannot authorize states to violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
dissented on the grounds that he did not feel that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause required the result reached by the majority, especially considering that the clause had been applied only a few times since the ratification of the amendment. Rehnquist reasoned that although they are related, the right to become a citizen of another state was not the same as the right to travel. Furthermore, he claimed that becoming a citizen of another state required both physical presence within the state and a subjective intent to remain there. Since residency requirements pertain to the latter factor of citizenship, Rehnquist reasoned they should not be unconstitutional.
dissented separately, because he felt that the majority attributed a meaning to the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause that its framers did not intend. He lamented the decision of the Slaughterhouse Cases which basically turned the clause into a nullity. He looked to the historical meaning and use of the language in the clause, citing the Charter of 1606
, which guaranteed the citizens of Virginia
therein all the "Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities" of a person born in England. He also noted that the phrase was used in the Articles of Confederation, which was then imported into Article IV
of the Constitution.
Finally, he suggested that the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment should be read the same way that Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause
was interpreted. He cited Justice Bushrod Washington
's interpretation of the latter clause in the famous case of Corfield v. Coryell
and stated that this is what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had intended. Thomas made a case for the revival of the clause to protect fundamental rights of citizens.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1999), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
discussed whether there is a constitutional right to travel from one state to another.
Background
In 1992, the state of CaliforniaCalifornia
California is a state located on the West Coast of the United States. It is by far the most populous U.S. state, and the third-largest by land area...
enacted a statute
Statute
A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations...
limiting the maximum welfare benefits available to newly arrived residents. At the time, California was paying the sixth-largest welfare benefits in the United States. In a move to reduce the state welfare budget, the California State Legislature
California State Legislature
The California State Legislature is the state legislature of the U.S. state of California. It is a bicameral body consisting of the lower house, the California State Assembly, with 80 members, and the upper house, the California State Senate, with 40 members...
enacted a statute (Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. §11450.03) to limit new residents, for the first year they live in the state, to the benefits they would have received in the state of their prior residence. For the state to comply with the then-existent Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Aid to Families with Dependent Children was a federal assistance program in effect from 1935 to 1996, which was administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services...
program, it needed a waiver from the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
The United States Secretary of Health and Human Services is the head of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, concerned with health matters. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet...
(HHS) in order to qualify for federal reimbursement. Louis Wade Sullivan
Louis Wade Sullivan
Louis Wade Sullivan is an American physician and businessman. He served as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President George H. W. Bush and founded the Morehouse School of Medicine....
, who was HHS Secretary at that point, granted his approval in October 1992.
On December 21, 1992, three California residents who were eligible for AFDC benefits filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California is composed of six divisions.The Bakersfield division has jurisdiction over certain cases in Inyo and Kern counties and on federal lands and National Parks...
, challenging the constitutionality of the durational residency requirement. All of the plaintiffs had alleged that they had moved into California to escape abusive family situations
Domestic violence
Domestic violence, also known as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, and intimate partner violence , is broadly defined as a pattern of abusive behaviors by one or both partners in an intimate relationship such as marriage, dating, family, or cohabitation...
. The District Court judge temporarily enjoined
Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions...
the state from enforcing the statute, and the state petitioned the court for certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
. But in a separate proceeding, the HHS Secretary's approval of the statute was invalidated, so the Court did not reach the merits of the case.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging...
(PRWORA) into law, creating the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is one of the United States of America's federal assistance programs. It began on July 2, 1997, and succeeded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, providing cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children through the...
(TANF) program, and expressly permitted states to limit aid to people who had been residents for less than a year. No longer requiring the approval of federal authorities, California began enforcing the statute.
Facts and procedural history
In 1997 the two plaintiffs in this case sued in the same court as the prior litigants, this time challenging both the California statute and the PRWORA's durational residency provision. The district courtUnited States district court
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...
judge, David F. Levi
David F. Levi
David F. Levi is a U.S. jurist and current Dean of the Duke University School of Law. From 1990–2007, he was a Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, serving as Chief Judge since 2003. At the time Levi left the bench, he was widely considered to be one...
(now Dean of Duke Law School), certified the case as a class action
Class action
In law, a class action, a class suit, or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued...
and issued a preliminary injunction
Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions...
. While the state argued that the statute was a legitimate use of its police powers (because it was largely a budgetary measure), Judge Levi still found for the plaintiffs and enjoined enforcement of the statute, on the grounds that it discriminated between newcomers to the state and long-time residents. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is a U.S. federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* District of Alaska* District of Arizona...
affirmed.
Majority opinion
Justice StevensJohn Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
, writing for the majority, found that although the "right to travel" was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
, the concept was "firmly embedded in our jurisprudence." He described three components of the right to travel:
- The right to enter one state and 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.
Because the statute did not directly impair entry or exit from the state, Stevens declined to discuss the first aspect of the right to travel although he did mention that the right was expressly mentioned in the Articles of Confederation
Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was an agreement among the 13 founding states that legally established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution...
. He briefly described the scope of the Art. IV Privileges and Immunities Clause
Privileges and Immunities Clause
The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner...
, but the main focus of his opinion was the application of the Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
. For the proposition that this amendment protected a citizen's right to resettle in other states, Stevens cited the majority opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases
Slaughterhouse Cases
The Slaughter-House Cases, were the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the relatively new Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution...
:
Justice Stevens further held in Sáenz that it was irrelevant that the statute only minimally impaired the plaintiffs' right to travel. The plaintiffs were new to the state of California, but they had the right to be treated the same as long-time residents, especially given that their need for welfare benefits was unrelated to the amount of time they had spent in the state. Furthermore, wrote Stevens, there was no reason for the state to fear that citizens of other states would take advantage of California's relatively generous welfare benefits because the proceeds of each welfare check would be consumed while the plaintiffs remained within the state. This distinguishes them from a "readily portable benefit, such as a divorce or a college education", for which durational residency requirements had been upheld in cases such as Sosna v. Iowa and Vlandis v. Kline.
California justified the statute solely on fiscal grounds, and Stevens held that this justification was insufficient. The state could have found another non-discriminatory way to reduce welfare costs, other than conditioning the welfare benefit amounts of new residents by reference to their length of stay within the state, or their state of prior residence. Moreover, the fact that PRWORA authorized states to set their own benefit levels did not assist in the determining the constitutionality of the state statute because Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
cannot authorize states to violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rehnquist's dissent
Chief Justice RehnquistWilliam Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
dissented on the grounds that he did not feel that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause required the result reached by the majority, especially considering that the clause had been applied only a few times since the ratification of the amendment. Rehnquist reasoned that although they are related, the right to become a citizen of another state was not the same as the right to travel. Furthermore, he claimed that becoming a citizen of another state required both physical presence within the state and a subjective intent to remain there. Since residency requirements pertain to the latter factor of citizenship, Rehnquist reasoned they should not be unconstitutional.
Thomas's dissent
Justice ThomasClarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve on the Court....
dissented separately, because he felt that the majority attributed a meaning to the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause that its framers did not intend. He lamented the decision of the Slaughterhouse Cases which basically turned the clause into a nullity. He looked to the historical meaning and use of the language in the clause, citing the Charter of 1606
Charter of 1606
The Charter of 1606, also known as the First Charter of Virginia, is a document from King James I of England to the Virginia Company assigning land rights to colonists for the stated purpose of propagating the Christian religion...
, which guaranteed the citizens of Virginia
Virginia
The Commonwealth of Virginia , is a U.S. state on the Atlantic Coast of the Southern United States. Virginia is nicknamed the "Old Dominion" and sometimes the "Mother of Presidents" after the eight U.S. presidents born there...
therein all the "Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities" of a person born in England. He also noted that the phrase was used in the Articles of Confederation, which was then imported into Article IV
Article Four of the United States Constitution
Article Four of the United States Constitution relates to the states. The article outlines the duties states have to each other, as well as those the federal government has to the states...
of the Constitution.
Finally, he suggested that the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause
Privileges or Immunities Clause
The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. It states:Along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, this clause became part of the Constitution on July 9, 1868....
of the Fourteenth Amendment should be read the same way that Article IV's Privileges and Immunities Clause
Privileges and Immunities Clause
The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner...
was interpreted. He cited Justice Bushrod Washington
Bushrod Washington
Bushrod Washington was a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice and the nephew of George Washington.Washington was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia, and was the son of John Augustine Washington, brother of the first president. Bushrod attended Delamere, an academy administered by the Rev....
's interpretation of the latter clause in the famous case of Corfield v. Coryell
Corfield v. Coryell
Corfield v. Coryell was an 1823 federal circuit court case decided by Justice Bushrod Washington while riding circuit...
and stated that this is what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had intended. Thomas made a case for the revival of the clause to protect fundamental rights of citizens.
See also
- Dred Scott v. SandfordDred Scott v. SandfordDred Scott v. Sandford, , also known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S...
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 526
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume