Saenz v. Roe

CONTEXT OF THE CASE

• Started in 1998
• California stated that for someone to use their states welfare they have to have been a state resident for at least one year (PRWORA)
• Brenda Roe advocated for welfare benefiters saying that California should not have any residency prerequisite for welfare

FACTS OF THE CASE

• The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)
• Says that states receiving welfare can pay to another state the amount it pays to cover a citizen that has moved from the former state into the the ladder state for one year
• Example: If a person is on welfare in Kansas and they move to California and they want Califonia's better welfare Kansas has to pay California the original amount of welfare to cover the moved person for one year.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION OF THE CASE

• Does California enforcing PRWORA violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

SUPREME COURT RULING

• The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 votes that it was unconstitutional for California to be enforcing PRWORA.

JUSTIFICATION OF THE RULING

• They stated that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens who have moved to a new state must be treated the same as citizens who have lived there for longer than one year because enforcing the PRWORA could discriminate certain citizens of the same larger country.