Is the 14th Amendment’s privileges or immunities clause coming back-after lying moribund for 126 years? That’s what the Supreme Court seemed to say last week in an opinion that could reverberate for years-and that would be good.
The question in Saenz v. Roe was whether California, pursuant to federal authority, could limit welfare payments to new residents for a year, paying the rate provided by their former states of residence, not the higher California rate. The rule was not meant to inhibit travel, the state said, which would be constitutionally impermissible, but to save money.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
