Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618 - Supreme Court 1969

The Supreme Court has held that regulations limiting certain fundamental rights may be justified only by a compelling state interest

—the United States Supreme Court declared unconstitutional one-year durational residency requirements for receipt of welfare benefits.

This reading of the charter provision is in accord with recent United States Supreme Court decisions stating that bona fide residence requirements for employment are valid.

—invalidating a law that conditioned receipt of welfare benefits on a residency requirement as an unconstitutional burden on right to interstate travel, and noting that "[t] his constitutional challenge cannot be answered by the argument that public assistance benefits are a `privilege'and not a `right

The United States Supreme Court has long held that the federal constitution guarantees a fundamental right to travel from one state to another.

—and "any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional."

"[The United States Supreme Court] long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement

—and withhold public assistance to those who had recently moved to the state and were otherwise eligible.

While a number of courts have stated that in a doubtful case, "any error, if there is to be one, should be committed in favor of allowing the class action

Our cases have firmly established that the right of interstate travel is constitutionally protected, does not necessarily rest on the Fourteenth Amendment, and is assertable against private as well as governmental interference.