Economy and the Constitution



Economy and the Constitution

Administrative Cost versus the Right to Travel and Equal Protection

Name and Citation

Administrative Cost versus Equal Protection and the Right to Travel

Shapiro v. Thompson 22 Ill.394 U.S. 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322, 22 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1969)

Key Facts

Welfare applicants get rejected on the basis of the law of residency requirement of at least one year of residency in Columbia. In this consideration, conclusion of three District Court judge have appealed on hold regarding unconstitutional state of Columbia and reject the request of welfare assistance to those residents who did not complete the 1 year requirement of residency within their jurisdiction.

The Connecticut Welfare Department appeal to Connecticut law for denial of an application for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) assistance to Vivian Marie Thompson who is a single parent of a child and pregnant with another one. She is 19 years old, moved from Massachusetts to Connecticut to reside with her mother. When her mother died she moved back to her own apartment but could not work or get a job training program. Therefore, she applied for support which was rejected on the basis of incomplete residency requirement under Connecticut law.

The Issue

Does the implication of a one year residency requirement for welfare assistance is unconstitutional or not.

Holding and Vote

Yes. Justice William Brennan voted that the one year residency requirement is unconstitutional.

Reasoning

The one year residency requirement is unconstitutional because it is based on the discrimination against poor families who have not fulfilled the requirement as the status of these families is the same as the families meeting the requirements. The residency requirement breaches the fifth amendment of the Due Process Clause.

Separate Opinions

Chief Justice Earl Warren (J. Warren) decided that the Congress is not authorized to act in one of its specific powers to implement the minimum nationwide residency requirements or permit the state to do so.

Justice John Harlan (J. Harlan) dissented and argued that the requirement of compelling interest and important relationship between that interest and law require intermediate study and inspection and the case would be examined on the basis of rational test.

Discussion

Even though the case has provided the strict standard of evaluation that has an effect on the right to travel but it does not clearly showed that when a state get these type of cases, what strict scrutiny be applied or the extent to which it ...