P+I Clause (14A) Flashcards
Saenz v Roe: CA law aimed to limit the amount of welfare available to families living in the state for less than 12 months to the amount paid in their prior State residence.
Issue: Whether a state can limit welfare benefits residing in the state for less than 12 months with regard to the privileges and immunities clause.
Holding: No, the P&I clause protects the right to travel.
Court Reasoning:
– 3 protections from P&I clause: (1) citizens may move freely between states; (2) equal treatment in all states when visiting; (3) new citizens treated the same as long-term residents living in the state
– Strict scrutiny found the law is discriminatory without a compelling state purpose (deter people moving to state for the purpose of more welfare benefits)
Dissent (Rehnquist): relied on P&I once in 135 years and this rule was good-faith residency requirement
Dissent (Thomas): want P&I to remain narrow and not create more Const. Rights in accordance with Slaughter House cases that had stripped the clause of meaning.
KEY TAKEAWAY: P&I as a means to protect a citizen’s right to change state citizenship
Edwards v. California: Court invalidates a law making it a misdemeanor to bring into California “any indigent person who is not a resident of the state”
CA argued that the law was necessary due to a huge influx of migrants into the state in recent years resulting in problems of health, morals and finance.
Unanimous in decisions to strike down the law but different about reasoning.
Byrnes (Majority): Relied on Commerce Clause
Douglas (Concurrence): the right of persons to move freely from State to State occupies a more protected position in our constitutional system than does the movement of cattle, fruit, steel and coal across state lines. The right to travel is incident of nation citizenship protected by the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment against state interference.
Prior to Saenz v. Roe
Note: Prior to Saenz v. Roe the court had temporarily found a home for the right to travel as a fundamental right triggering Strict Scrutiny under the EPC Of the 14th amendment in Shapiro v. Thompson. Shapiro had a similar law to Saenz. Brennan wrote for the court: the purpose of inhibiting migration by needy persons into the state is constitutionally impermissible. State has a valid interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its programs but a state may not accomplish such a purpose by invidious distinctions between classes of its citizens.
