Citation network
Saenz Vs. Roe
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 17, 1999
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
S. 489 (1999) October Term, 1998 Syllabus Saenz, Director, California Department of Social Services, Et Al. V. RoeSearch
-
for it to go into effect-the Federal District Court enjoined its implementation, finding that, under Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 618 , and Zobel v. WilliamsSearch
-
Green v. AndersonSearch
-
not be exercised in a way that violates 491 other specific provisions of the Constitution. See Williams v. RhodesSearch
-
Relying primarily on our decisions in Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
U. S. 618 (1969), and Zobel v. WilliamsSearch
-
rents indicating that California's housing costs are higher than any other State except Massachusetts. See Green v. AndersonSearch
-
of Robert Greenstein, App. 91-94. 495 marily affirmed for the reasons stated by the District Judge. Green v. AndersonSearch
-
without further action by the Secretary. We vacated the judgment and directed that the case be dismissed. Anderson v. GreenSearch
-
their benefits are determined by the law of their State of residence from January 29 to April 15, assuming 3 Beno v. ShalalaSearch
-
action in the Eastern District of California making essentially the same claims asserted by the plaintiffs in Anderson v. GreenSearch
-
Without finally deciding the merits, the Court of Appeals affirmed his issuance of a preliminary injunction. Roe v. AndersonSearch
-
federal courts that have addressed the issue,9 we granted certiorari because of the importance of the case. Anderson v. RoeSearch
-
is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence. United States v. GuestSearch
-
U. S. 745 , 757 (1966). Indeed, as Justice Stewart reminded us in Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
Id., at 643 (concurring opinion). 9 See Maldonado v. HoustonSearch
-
Anderson v. GreenSearch
-
Hicks v. PetersSearch
-
Westenfelder v. FergusonSearch
-
travel incapable of surviving rational-basis review). Two state courts have reached the same conclusion. See Mitchell v. SteffenSearch
-
Sanchez v. DepartmentSearch
-
cf. Jones v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
patently unconstitutional.' United States v. JacksonSearch
-
from one place to another, including the right to cross state borders while en route, that was vindicated in Edwards v. CaliforniaSearch
-
a state law that impeded the free interstate passage of the indigent. We reaffirmed that right in United States v. GuestSearch
-
Corfield v. CoryellSearch
-
It provides important protections for nonresidents who enter a State whether to obtain employment, Hicklin v. OrbeckSearch
-
U. S. 518 (1978), to procure medical services, Doe v. BoltonSearch
-
U. S. 179 , 200 (1973), or even to engage in commercial shrimp fishing, Toomer v. WitsellSearch
-
be a substantial reason for requiring the nonresident to pay more than the resident for a hunting license, see Baldwin v. FishSearch
-
and Game Comm'n of Mont., 436 U. S. 371 , 390-391 (1978), or to enroll in the state university, see Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
their citizenship to any classes or persons. A citizen of the United States has a perfect constitutional Dred Scott v. SandfordSearch
-
may be more categorical than that articulated in Shapiro, see supra, at 499, but it is surely no less strict. v BecauseSearch
-
of benefits constitutes a lesser incursion on the right to travel than an outright denial of all benefits. See Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
or a college education, that will be enjoyed after they return to their original domicile. See, e. g., Sosna v. IowaSearch
-
that the legislation was not enacted for any such reason.19 Third, even if it were, as we squarely held in Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial