SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
394 U.S. 618 (1969)
NATURE OF THE CASE: These appeals are from decisions holding unconstitutional Connecticut, Pennsylvania, or District of Columbia statutory provisions which deny welfare assistance to persons who are residents and meet all other eligibility requirements except that they have not resided within the jurisdiction for at least a year immediately preceding their applications for assistance.
FACTS: A state statute denied welfare benefits to Thompson (Ps). Each of the Ps, had accrued rights under their previous addresses but when they moved they lost those benefits because they did not meet residence requirements. The District of Columbia maintains that the waiting period is valid based on four factors; the waiting period: 1) preserves the integrity of state public assistance programs by deterring individuals from seeking benefits and remaining a continuing burden to state; 2) prevents illegal state entrants from obtaining multiple benefits; 3) ensures that only individuals who made contributions to the state by paying taxes and promoting community development receive benefits; and 4) assists the state in efficiently carrying out its administrative objectives as well as encourage others to move to the state. The District Court determined that because the state benefit program stemmed from the federal Aid to Families and Dependent Children (AFDC) program does not automatically make it constitutionally valid. The District Court held that the statute was unconstitutional. Also Pennsylvania and Connecticut had similar laws which denied welfare assistance to residents who had not lived within their jurisdiction for at least one year immediately prior to the applications. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and granted certiorari.
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