SAENZ V. ROE

SAENZ V. ROE, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), 7 to 2 Supreme Court decision that found a constitutionally protected "right to travel" between the states. In 1992 California limited new residents' Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits to the amount offered in their previous state of residence. A federal district court enjoined the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' approval of the action, declaring it a violation of immigrants' right to be "treated equally with existing residents."

In 1996 Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), replacing AFDC with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). TANF authorized states to limit beneficiaries to the benefit of another state for a period of twelve months, and in light of its passage, California announced it would resume enforcement of the 1992 benefit change. The resulting class-action suit claimed that California's residency requirement, and PRWORA's apparent approval thereof, violated the constitutional "right to travel," constructed from Article IV of, and the Fourteenth Amendment to, the U.S. Constitution. The Court agreed with "Roe," and Justice John Paul Stevens's opinion declared that "Citizens of the United States, whether rich or poor, have the right to choose to be citizens 'of the State wherein they reside.'…The States, however, do not have any right to select their citizens."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ellis, Nan S., and Cheryl M. Miller. "A Welfare Waiting Periods: A Public Policy Analysis of Saenz v. Roe." Stanford Law & Policy Review 11, no. 2 (Spring 2000).

R. VolneyRiser

See alsoWelfare System .