Mathews v. Diaz

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:26 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

73-1046

Appellee

Diaz

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mathews

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1972-1975)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

426 U.S. 67 (1976)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1975

Reargued:

Monday, January 12, 1976

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Mathews, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Graham v. Richardson

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 04:06:04 +0000

Location

Arizona Dept of Public Welfare

1717 W Jefferson St Phoenix AZ 85007

Phoenix, AZ 85007

United States

33° 26' 47.292" N, 112° 5' 47.418" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

609

Appellant

John O. Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare, State of Arizona

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Carmen Richardson et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 727, Sailer et al. v. Leer et al.

Heard By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

403 U.S. 365 (1971)

Argued

Monday, March 22, 1971

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1971

Advocates

Michael S. Flam (argued the cause for the appellant in No. 609)

Joseph P. Work (argued the cause for the appellants in No. 727)

Anthony P. Ching (argued the cause for the appellees in No. 609)

Jonathan M. Stein (argued the cause for the appellees in No. 727, pro hac vice)

Facts of the Case

The state of Arizona restricts the distribution of welfare benefits to individuals who are either United States citizens or aliens who have lived in the country for at least 15 years. In 1969, Carmen Richardson, a resident alien of Arizona who met all requirements for welfare eligibility except the residency requirement, filed a class action lawsuit against the Commissioner of the State's Department of Public Welfare questioning the constitutionality of that requirement. The three-judge court in the District of Arizona found in favor of Richardson, but the Commissioner appealed. In the same year, a similar class action suit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In this case, resident aliens of Pennsylvania challenged state law which dictated that if a Pennsylvania resident did not qualify for federal aid then he or she could only receive welfare benefits from the state if he or she were a citizen or had applied for citizenship. This three-judge court also found in favor of the resident aliens. However, one judge disagreed, and the defendants, namely the Executive Director of the Philadelphia County Board of Assistance and the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Department of Public Welfare, appealed.

Question

Does a state, like Arizona or Pennsylvania, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it denies welfare benefits to those who are not United States citizens or to aliens who have not lived in this country for a certain number of years?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Richardson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the Court asserted that to classify state residents solely based on alienage was inherently questionable, because aliens constitute a minority, separate from the rest of the population. The Court conceded that there had been instances in which state laws could treat citizens and non-citizens differently. However, it maintained that a state’s aim to conserve welfare benefits for citizens would not legitimize the denial of welfare benefits to aliens. Their justification was that the aliens pay taxes and, consequently, contribute to the pool of money from which welfare benefits are drawn. As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the welfare benefit restrictions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Cases by Issue - Welfare Benefits

Mathews v. Diaz

Graham v. Richardson

Location