 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is 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 |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=May 17, 1999 | |date=May 17, 1999 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Liberties | |subject=Constitutional Liberties | ||
|facts=In the 1990s, California had the most generous welfare benefits in the United States. | |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. | 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. | |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. | |||
|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 | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/saenz-v-roe | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/saenz-v-roe | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:41, July 14, 2023
| 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.
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 "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.
