Register | Lost your password?

CaseBriefs

Saenz v. Roe

View this case and other resources at:
Bloomberg Law

Citation. 526 U.S. 489, 119 S. Ct. 1518, 143 L. Ed. 2d 689, 1999 U.S.

Brief Fact Summary. California passed a law that awarded less welfare benefits to residents who lived in California for less than 12 months than it paid other residents.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution), a State must provide the same benefits to new residents as it does to other residents.


Facts. California enacted a law limiting the welfare benefits for citizens who lived in California for less than 12 months. The welfare family would be paid the amount they received in their last state of residence. The Respondents, Brenda Roe and Anna Doe (Respondents) recently moved to California and challenged the law on equal protection grounds. The district court preliminarily enjoined implementation of the statute and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue. Does a statute providing lower benefits to families who have lived in California for less than 12 months violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution?

Content Type: Brief


Comments are closed.