Zaenz v. Roe, __ U.S. __ (119 S.Ct. 1518 (1999) p.76supp
CA trie to discriminate against out of staters by limiting wellfare payments to new residents to be the same amount as the person received from their old state, for the first year while they are living in CA.
The district court concluded that the existence of the federal statutes did not affect the the legal analysis in his prior opinion. The court of Appeals affirmed his issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Whether the CA law is unconstitutional (a violation of the 14th Amendment privileges and immunities). Whether the right of a newly arrived citizen is entitled to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same State.
The right of citizens of other states are protected to move to other states and be treated as citizens of the new state. The states do not have the right to select their citizens.
CA can not discriminate against new residents. Citizens of every state should be treated the same.
The 14th Amendment was framed upon the theory that the people of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division.
Renquist and Thomas dissent: A person is no longer traveling in any sense of the word when he finishes his journey to a State which he plans to make his home.
Created on: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 at 16:06:35 (PDT)