The Evolving Right to Travel: Saenz v. Roe

Martha F. Davis

Publius: The Journal of Federalism, vol. 29, issue 2, 95-110

Abstract: Although the 1996 federal welfare-reform law shifted more authority for welfare policy to the states-including authority to provide lower benefits to new state-residents than to longer term residents-the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in Saenz v. Roe delineates a limit on that authority, namely, that states cannot discriminate against citizens based on their length of in-state residency. The Court's reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause in Saenz, while surprising after its long dormancy, is not a departure from prior precedent. What remains to be seen is whether states will attempt to avoid the decision's implications by adopting new variations on residency laws, and whether the revival of the privileges or immunities clause will lead to a rearticulalion of individual civil rights, based on a new understanding of national citizenship. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/ (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:publus:v:29:y::i:2:p:95-110

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Publius: The Journal of Federalism is currently edited by Paul Nolette and Philip Rocco

More articles in Publius: The Journal of Federalism from CSF Associates Inc. Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().