AJC Joins In Brief To U.S. Supreme Court: Welfare Benefits Restricted By Residency Is Unconstitutional

American Jewish Committee
Monday, 14 December 1998

The American Jewish Committee has joined in an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that American citizens, having the right to travel freely throughout the country, cannot have their welfare benefits restricted based upon the residency they choose.

In the State of California, the Welfare and Institutions Code provides that welfare payments to any family that moves from another state and has resided in California for less than 12 months are limited to the amount the family would have received in its state of prior residence. In this case --Anderson v. Roe -- the respondents, former residents of Oklahoma and the District of Columbia who are now residents of California, have challenged this statute on the grounds that it impermissibly burdens their right of interstate migration and denies them equal protection of the laws with other California citizens.

In its brief, filed jointly with Catholic Charities USA, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, Lutheran Services in America, and American Friends Service Committee, AJC contends that "Citizens choose states, and not the other way around. Citizens choose states for a wide variety of reasons: economic opportunity, responsive government, unintrusive government, high benefits such as good schools or superior care for the elderly, low income or inheritance taxes, space and physical beauty, and personal and family attachments. Whatever the individual's reasons, a state is not free to deny residence to any citizen of the United States, or to deny the benefits of state citizenship to any such resident, or to 'require newcomers to accept a status inferior to that of all old-time residents of the state upon their arrival.' "

The brief further contends that the right of citizens to choose and change their state of residency is as central to the very nature of citizenship as is voting rights.

The AJC brief agrees that California may deny some of the benefits of state citizenship to non-California citizens and may establish durational and other requirements designed to assure that claims of residence are bona fide. It may not, however, the AJC adds, erect significant barriers to migration or establish a benefit program, set levels of benefits it deems appropriate for California citizens, and then reserve those benefit levels for long-term citizens in order to deter migration by other American citizens seeking the same benefits.

Jeffrey Sinensky, AJC Legal Director, commented: "Residency-based welfare restrictions are inimical to AJC's longstanding policy on aid to the poor and welfare reform. We urge the Supreme Court to strike down the California statute and make that state's benefits, such as public education and employment services, which have traditionally provided a stepping stone to self-sufficiency, available to all its citizens"

For more information, or to contact American Jewish Committee, see their website at: www.ajc.org