Editing Saenz v. Roe

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Supreme Court of the United States
|date=May 17, 1999
|subject=Constitutional Liberties
|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.
|issues=Should SCOTUS apply the [[strict scrutiny]] standard of review in this case?
|arguments=Rehnquist & Thomas dissented. 

Rehnquist argued that the "right to travel" doesn't mean the right to receive state benefits.
|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.
|comments=*[[Constitutional_Law_Maggs/4th_ed._Outline_II#Saenz_v._Roe_.281999.29]]
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/saenz-v-roe
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}
}}