Saenz v. Roe

E21553

Fourteenth Amendment case United States Supreme Court case right to travel case

Saenz v. Roe is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down California’s welfare residency requirements and reaffirmed the constitutional right to travel under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

Observed surface forms (1)

Surface form	Occurrences
Saenz, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Roe et al.	1

Statements (51)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Fourteenth Amendment case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ right to travel case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	civil rights ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ welfare law ⓘ
arguedDate	1999-01-13 ⓘ
citation	526 U.S. 489 ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ surface form: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ surface form: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1999-05-17 ⓘ
decisionType	landmark decision ⓘ
defendant	California Department of Social Services ⓘ Saenz ⓘ
dissentingOpinionBy	Clarence Thomas ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
distinguishedFrom	Slaughter-House Cases ⓘ
docketNumber	98-97 ⓘ
doctrine	revival of the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a source of substantive rights ⓘ
followedPrecedent	Shapiro v. Thompson ⓘ United States v. Guest ⓘ
fullCaseName	Saenz v. Roe self-linksurface differs ⓘ surface form: Saenz, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Roe et al.
holding	California's durational residency requirement for full welfare benefits violates the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ states may not discriminate against new residents in the distribution of welfare benefits ⓘ the right to travel includes the right of newly arrived citizens to be treated the same as longer-term citizens of a state ⓘ
joinedByInMajority	Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ Antonin Scalia ⓘ David H. Souter ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ surface form: Sandra Day O'Connor Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
legalIssue	constitutionality of California's welfare residency requirements ⓘ
legalPrinciple	citizens of the United States have a right to become citizens of any state and be treated equally there ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	John Paul Stevens ⓘ
originatingJurisdiction	United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ⓘ
overturnedLawOrPolicy	California statute limiting welfare benefits for new residents to the level of their prior state of residence ⓘ
plaintiff	Roe ⓘ
precedentFor	cases challenging state discrimination against new residents ⓘ
reargued	no ⓘ
relatedConcept	durational residency requirement ⓘ equal citizenship ⓘ federalism ⓘ
result	California welfare residency requirement struck down ⓘ
rightRecognized	constitutional right to travel between states ⓘ right of newly arrived state citizens to equal treatment ⓘ
stateInvolved	California, United States ⓘ surface form: California
typeOfRestrictionChallenged	welfare benefit limitation for new residents ⓘ
vote	7-2 ⓘ
yearDecided	1999 ⓘ

Referenced by (2)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Saenz v. Roe → fullCaseName → Saenz v. Roe self-linksurface differs ⓘ

this entity surface form: Saenz, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Roe et al.

Privileges and Immunities Clause → keyCase → Saenz v. Roe ⓘ