The Oyez Project: Civil Rights Issues - Residency Requirements Decisions

Attorney General Of N. Y. v. Soto-Lopez

No details yet.

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana

Did the Montana law violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution as delineated in Article IV, Section 2?

The Court affirmed the right of Montana to charge higher fees for out-of-state elk hunters. Justice Blackmun found that the Privileges and Immunities Clause only applied to activities which bear "on the vitality of the Nation as a single entity." Since elk hunting is a recreational activity and not fundamental to the survival of nonresidents of Montana, Blackmun argued that it did not fall within the scope of the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. "Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union," he concluded.

Barnard v. Thorstenn

No details yet.

Carter v. Stanton

No details yet.

Chappelle v. Greater Baton Rouge Airport Dist.

No details yet.

Dunn v. Blumstein

Did Tennessee's durational residency requirements violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the law was an unconstitutional infringement upon the right to vote and the right to travel. Applying a strict equal protection test, the Court found that the law did not necessarily promote a compelling state interest. Justice Marshall argued in the majority opinion that the durational residency requirements were neither the least restrictive means available to prevent electoral fraud nor an appropriate method of guaranteeing the existence of "knowledgeable voters" within the state.

Elkins v. Moreno

No details yet.

Frazier v. Heebe

No details yet.

Hall v. Beals

No details yet.

Hicklin v. Orbeck

Did the Alaska statute violate the Constitution's Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The unanimous Court held that the Alaska Local Hire Act violated the Constitution. Citing past decisions of the Court, Justice Brennan argued that the Alaska law did not meet the strict standard of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, namely, that discrimination against non-citizens of a state is only allowed when those non-citizens "constitute a peculiar source of evil at which the statute is aimed." Since no evidence indicated that non-residents were the major cause of state unemployment or any other evil, there was no justification for the law.

Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor

No details yet.

Kusper v. Pontikes

No details yet.

Martinez v. Bynum

Did the Texas law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

No. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the Constitution permitted states to restrict eligibility for tuition-free education to bona-fide residents. The Court found that the Texas requirement was "far more generous" than traditional residency requirements, since it extended benefits to many children even if they did not intend to remain in a school district indefinitely. No violation of the Equal Protection Clause was found.

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County

No details yet.

Rosario v. Rockefeller

No details yet.

Saenz v. Roe

Does a state statute, authorizing states receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families to pay the benefit amount of another State's TANF to its first year residents, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's right-to-travel protections?

Yes. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to travel in three ways by: allowing citizens to move freely between states, securing the right to be treated equally in all states when visiting, and securing the rights of new citizens to be treated like long-time citizens of a state. The Court explained that by paying first-year residents the same TNF benefits they received in their state of origin, states treated new residents differently than others who have lived in their borders for over one year. As such, enforcement of the PRWORA power unconstitutionally discriminated among residents.

Shapiro v. Thompson

Does the conditioning of AFDC aid on various residency requirements violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Yes. The Court held that since the regulation touched "on the fundamental right of interstate movement," it must promote a compelling state interest. Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC, all failed to advance any compelling administrative or social reasons for their requirements. The goal of simply preventing indigents from moving to these states was constitutionally impermissible, argued Justice Brennan, given the value the United States has historically placed on the freedom to travel.

Sosna v. Iowa

No details yet.

Supreme Court Of New Hampshire v. Piper

No details yet.

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman

Did the Virginia law violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution?

In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that Virginia's residency requirement was unconstitutional. The Court held that "'one of the privileges which the Clause guarantees to citizens of State A is that of doing business in State B on terms of substantial equality with the citizens of that State,'" and that the practice of law was sufficiently basic to the economy to be deemed a privilege protected by the Clause. The Court found that the regulation discriminated among otherwise equally qualified applicants solely on the basis of residency, failing to bear a close relation to a substantial state interest.

Toll v. Moreno

No details yet.

United Building & Constr. Trades v. Mayor

No details yet.

Zobel v. Williams

No details yet.