Shapiro v. Thompson
- Decided
- April 21, 1969
- Docket
- 9
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,119 timesOverruled (verified)Overruled by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (verified: Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress) · Edelman v. Jordan
What later courts said
- recognizing that a financial disincentive to move can implicate the fundamental right to travel — Elbert W. Williamson v. Christine O. Gregoire (1998)
- holding that residency requirements for receipt of state welfare benefits violate the right to travel protected by the Equal Protection Clause — Williams v. King (2006)
- holding that statutory prohibition of welfare benefits to state or District of Columbia residents of less than one year violated equal protection — Samples v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass'n (2013)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
These three appeals were restored to the calendar for reargument. 392 U. S. 920 (1968). Each is an appeal from a decision of a three-judge District Court holding [*622] unconstitutional a State or District of Columbia statutory provision which denies welfare assistance to residents of the State or District who have not resided within their jurisdictions for at least one year immediately preceding their applications for such assistance.[1] We affirm the judgments of the District Courts in the three cases.
I.
Statutes cited
- 42 U.S.C. § 602
- 42 U.S.C. § 601
- 42 U.S.C. § 1351
- 28 U.S.C. § 2282
Cite this
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.