The Evolving Right to Travel: Saenz v. Roe

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.