| Abstract: | Although the 1996 federal welfare-reform law shifted more authorityfor welfare policy to the states-including authority to providelower benefits to new state-residents than to longer term residents-theU. S. Supreme Court's decision in Saenz v. Roe delineates alimit on that authority, namely, that states cannot discriminateagainst citizens based on their length of in-state residency.The Court's reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment's privilegesor immunities clause in Saenz, while surprising after its longdormancy, is not a departure from prior precedent. What remainsto be seen is whether states will attempt to avoid the decision'simplications by adopting new variations on residency laws, andwhether the revival of the privileges or immunities clause willlead to a rearticulalion of individual civil rights, based ona new understanding of national citizenship. |
