GRAHAM V. RICHARDSON
403 U.S. 365 (1971)
NATURE OF THE CASE: The issue is whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a State from conditioning welfare benefits either (a) upon the beneficiary's possession of United States citizenship, or (b) if the beneficiary is an alien, upon his having resided in this country for a specified number of years.
FACTS: An Arizona law denies welfare benefits to non-U.S. citizens unless the aliens resided in the United States for at least 15 years. A Pennsylvania law denies benefits to non-U.S. citizens. Appellee Richardson, at the institution of this suit in July, 1969, was 64 years of age. She is a lawfully admitted resident alien. She emigrated from Mexico in 1956, and, since then, has resided continuously in Arizona. She became permanently and totally disabled. She applied for benefits, but was denied relief solely because of the residency provision. Mrs. Richardson (P) instituted a class action and claimed that Arizona's alien residency requirements violates the Equal Protection Clause and the constitutional right to travel; that they conflict with the Social Security Act, and are thus overborne by the Supremacy Clause; and that the regulation of aliens has been preempted by Congress. The court upheld P's motion for summary judgment on equal protection grounds. The Commissioner (D) appealed.
In the Pennsylvania case: Appellee Elsie Mary Jane Leger is a lawfully admitted resident alien. She was born in Scotland in 1937. She came to this country in 1965 at the age of 28 under contract for domestic service with a family. She has resided continuously in Pennsylvania since then, and has been a taxpaying resident of the Commonwealth. In 1967, she left her domestic employment to accept more remunerative work in Philadelphia. She entered into a common law marriage with a United States citizen. In 1969, illness forced both her and her husband to give up their employment. They applied for public assistance. Each was ineligible under the federal programs. Mr. Leger, however, qualified for aid under the state program. Aid to Mrs. Leger was denied because of her alienage. The monthly grant to Mr. Leger was less than the amount determined by both federal and Pennsylvania authorities as necessary for a minimum standard of living in Philadelphia for a family of two. Mrs. Leger instituted a class action and she obtained a temporary restraining order preventing Ds from continuing to deny her assistance. She then began to receive, and still receives, with her husband, a public assistance grant. These two states maintain that the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause does not include alienage as a suspect class that would warrant strict scrutiny in analyzing the validity of these laws. The District Court struck down both statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment