Saenz v. Roe case brief

Saenz v. Roe (1999)

Facts: Pregnant couple moves from OK to CA. Husband takes leave of absence from work to help his wife during her difficult pregnancy. HE was fired. Couple could not obtain welfare benefits.

Issue: Q of whether there is a new home for rights other than EP strand that where there not equality rights or procedural, that this will be a new home for fundamental rights. LPR v. Durational Residency Reqt. Is there a right to travel—the right of newly arrived citizens to the same priveleges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of the same state.

Holding: State’s legitimate interest in saving money provides no justification for its decision to discriminate among equally eligible citizens. Thomas suggests that this case opens PI to be reinterpreted to be a source of POSITIVE RIGHTS, he also states that slaughter house cases were wrongly decided.

1. Protects rights of citizens of one state to enter and leave to another state
2. the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present.
3. LPR rt to be treated like other citizens of that state. The court applies EP analysis applying strict scrutiny and found that California cannot meet its burden.

Note: As attorney for P, want to try to get strict or heightened scrutiny. EP will likely not get you there b/c wealth is not a suspect classification. Since EP is about classifications, need to argue it under fundamental rights grounds (DP).