# Amicus Curiae Brief — Shapiro v. Thompson > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0083%3A07 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1969 - **Citation:** 394 U.S. 618 ## Text . , a\- = r? f > a . ¢ : F I a af D , SUPREME C COURT. os : 2 aoe : | pore DEC 1 1967. es In the Supreme Court bee ot I © we ..... United States eC OG Ocrosze TéeM, 1968 | ; : Nee G- ~ Brbwarp Smarimo, Welfare Commissioner : of Connecticut, - Appellant, | =, ae : -‘Viviaw Tuompson,, . one | = | cm _ Appellee. - ? c ¥ “+, Ga aged from the cae States District Court < - _ for the District of Connectiont » : pe Brief of the State of California as a Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Appellant ee ioe Lore ., Pi ee ane a Attorney General of the Btate (¢ of @alifornia ..- : ae EizapeTH PALMER ~ ges ‘ , Attorney General "6 2 Building : : ; Ban Francion, California 94108 Tel. 557-0266 Attorneys } tor State a |. Califorma | Amicus Curiae- | & SORG PRINTING COMPANY oF CALIFORNIA, 346 FIRST STREET, SAN PRANCISCO 94105 e< > SUBJECT INDEX s : ; Page __ Interest of the State of California: ig -Colifornia Statutes Involved . 3 Argument , 4 I. Requiring of All Applicants. for AFDC Benefits One Year’s Residence in California Has a Reasonable Rela- - ae ‘tionship to the Legislative Purpose of Giving Aid to All |+ “Bligible Needy Withit the Limits of Available Public “Resources and. Within Budgetary Predictability and / __ ~“tThus Is Not.a Denial of “Equal Protection of the Laws” _ IL. ‘The Constitutionally Proteeted Right of Interstate Trav- el and Settlement in the State of One’s Choice Does Not - Encompass Subsidized Travel or Settlement. Leones Conclusion iranian om » 22 . 9 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED * Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964). 9 | Carrington v. Rash, 880 U.S. 89 (1965 Jann? ae eee f & } x oars Dambroskv. Plister, 380 US. 479 (1964) 10 : Bawards v. California, 314 US. 160 (1941).. _aeB, 9, 11,12” Dengan: Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963)....... we Oe Flemming v. “Nestor, 363 US. 603 (1960) hii 6 Kent v. Dulles, 357 US. 116 (1958) ecm mn i 2 " Madden v. Commonweelth of Ky., 309 U.S. 89 (1999)... 8 - Marshall v. California Department of Social Welfare, et al., ae Civil Action No. 47401 ............ . 2° McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 US. a (ej. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 US. 398 (1962)....... anal, 12 Silver et al..v. Reagan, et al., 67 Adv. Cal. Rpts. 455................ 9 r Us. y. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1965)... 2 2 easil¥. Rusk, 361 US. 1 (1965). Te ee ' _ STATUTES Fo California 1967 Budget Act, Sec. $2.5... rot 6 California Welfare & Institutions Code: ee See. 11252 iecenh < la Se See: 10000 ........ ‘2 ee AEE * EG” eA Ee ee —- 3,5. - See. 11004 -.. :. si ne * ae Conn. Gen, Stat. § 17-24 ......-.--.----- ; ,. 4 " 49 Stat. 627 (1935) as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 602(b) (2) (1964) 11 | - Oran, Aurnoeriss Harvith, The Constitutionality,of Residence Tests for Ginicel + and Categorical Assistance Programs, 54 Calif. L. Rew. : . _ 567 (1966) wos 11 be ne US. Burediu of the Census PC(2)-2B Mobility for Staten and » State. rogeaptie Areag ' . 9 ts the Saga me Cart 0 of the ~- United States: _Ooronen Tena, 1967" eh — | | ERNARD ‘Suarmo, Welfare Commissioner et, CTE Connecticut, : . erate. wae : > Appellant, Vivian Toompson,: ct ae Appellee. |] .: . < ij ‘ j “4 . 7 a a ts >: : - On Appeal: from the United States District Court ~ ’ for the District of Connecticut ” Brief of the State of California as - Amicus renee on Behalf of Averitt | ee: ee i Oo Ko 7 INTEREST OF THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA : The conatitutionality of California’ . durational residence — requirement as @ condition éf eligibility for benefits: under — vag ae. Families with Dependent Children program has bee challenged on the: identical grounds ‘as in the instant .. -. pre receding.” oe ie » 7 Ra Aine 1. Violstiog of the Privg§ege and ‘Immunities Clause ond the ' Equal Protection of the Laws Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to .the- United States. Constitution. Appellee herein also alleged ~ -violation of Art. IV, sec. 2 of the U.S. Const. In the California case the Plaintiffs have alleged violation of. the sesiiaai Clause. oe Se ee ti ‘In course,of litigation in the United States District — Court for the Northern District of California is Marshall v. ~ California Department of Social Welfare, et al., Civil Action No. 47401 where a three-judge court has been convened.? The State of California fully supports the position a the State of . Connecticut asserting the right of’a state td impose a Fesidence requirement as a condition-for the re-— should be apprised of certain important differences between the challenged statutes of the two states. _ _ The Court below found invidious the ‘classifications i in the State of Connecticut’s statute which grants welfare after three months residency in Connecticpt to those who arrived with resources or ready employment but requires ‘ one year residency for those who come empty handed. It - . ceipt of public. assistance. However, we believe the Court | —_ ‘is imperative to note that California laws contain no-such and no doubt té"all of the states is. the Court’s apparent conclusion that a statute which has for its purpose- -protec- tion of the state’s fiscal responsibility ig per se an uncon- . ‘gtitutional purpose. There is also involved the difference . infirmities. Of utinnst concern to the State of California between the right to travel. freely’ and a. claimed right to | be subsidized at the point of stoppage after exercise of the right to travel. We-comment on this below. “This argument will be confined to the California. statu- tory plan for Aid ‘to Families ‘with Dependent Children : (hereinafter referred to as AFDC) in relation to the deci- sion of ey court — Z * m5 Petiadante fileda Motion for Summary J udgment on October hearing set for January 26, 1968. 4, 1967, based essentially on the arguments set x yephs in this — e ‘ 4 : “ 3 4 » : iad or ae - CALIFORNIA STATUTES INVOLVED | Psa Welfare. & Institutions Code, section 11252 provides : Ny dence in the state. “For the purposes of this chapter, a child who meets any of the iat qualifications has. residence i in 1 the | e State: (a) If he has inik p ysically present i in the state for one year immediately preceding the date of application. _ '(b) If his parent or parents have resided in the state’ for the period of one year immediately preceding the es ~ date of application. (c) If-the parent or other ag with whom the child is living has resided in the state for the period _ of one year immediately preceding the birth of the child. -- | and the child was born within one year immediately © preceding the date of application. ~@ If he is born in the state.” ae & serena Code, section 10000 seiidiions| “The purpose of this division is to provide for pro- | _ tection, care, and assistance to the people of the state i in need thereof, and to promote the welfare and happi- ~—ness of ali of the people of the state by providing appro- priate aid and services to all of its needy and dis- tressed. It is the legislative intent that aid shall ba ad- — ’ - ministered and services provided promptly and hu- - manely, with due regard for the preservation of family life, and without discrimination on account of race, national origin or ancestry, religion, or political affil- iation; and that aid shall be so adm*nistered and serv- * . jees so provided as to encourage self-respect, self- - ® peliance, and the —_ to be a good = useful to | society.” . "Welfare & Toatitetions Code, section 10001 provides in part: ° “The purposes of the alias social services for. “whicli -- gtafé grants-in-aid are made to counties are: e “No child is eligible to receive aid unless" he has resi- — : 3 (a) To provide on behalf of the general public, and within:the limits of public resources, reasonable sup- — _ port and maintenance for needy and dependent families and persons. . . hy (Emphasis added) oe . = S "Welfare & Institutions Code,.section 11004 provides in > The provisions of this code relative to public social services for which state grant-in-aid are made to the counties shall be administered fairly to the end that all persgns.who are eligible and apply for such public social services shall receive the assistance to which ~ - they are entitled promptly, with due consideration for the needs of applicants and the safeguarding of public ° funds... .” (Emphasis added) ‘ARGUMENT Requiring of All Applicants for AFDC Benefits One Year's | Residence in California Has a Reasonable Relationship to the "Legislative Purpose of Giving Aid to All Eligible Needy Within Predictability and Thus Is Not a Denial of "Equal Protection - of the Laws” Be ee ® | teenth Amendment-to the U nited States Constitution is “whether, the classifications drawn in a statute are reason- — able in light of its purpose” ( Carrington v. Rash, 380. U:S. _ 89, 93 (1965), quoting McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, . 191 (1964).) ee reone Applying this test, the court below held the purpose of . “Connecticut’s durational residence requirement* “to pro- 3. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17-2d: provides: —- “When any person comes into this state without visible means of support for the immediate future.and applies for Aid to Dependent Children under Chapter 301 or general assistance. under Part I of Chapter 308 within one year from his arrival, - G the Limits of Available Public Resources and Within Budgetary e test for ascertaining: whether legislation meets the requirements of the eqyal protection clause of the Four-————~~_ ~~ ——— ee aoe ; ay tect its fise by discouraging entry of those who come néed- iB _ ing-relief” void,* and that, even if the purpose ‘were valid, the classification based on wealth between, those: “who enter - with a cash stake and those who do not is not reasonable i in. ’ Ahe light of its purpose. iets op ih California’ s statute does not make any distinction between - those entrants who are’ ‘indigent, those with a cash stake, or ' » those -with substantial employment prospects. In order to. be eligible for AFDC in California every applicant, regard-' _ less of race, creed ar substance must. have one year’ 8 resi dence. - California has a thoroughly: seasonal and sonistitutionail | basis for its: durational residence requirement, it is not as is Connecticuts’ to prevent in-migration of indigents. The — avowed goal of California’s Publie Assistance Programs, | namely to render assistance to needy and distressed resi- . dents of California (Welf. & Inst. Code sec. 10000), must be read with the legislative caveat “to provide on behalf of é ‘ie the-general piblie, and within the limits of public resources, ‘reasonable support, and maintenance for needy and depend- ~— ent family and persons.” ” Welf. & Inst. Code, See. 100014): ox — , —Seetion 11004 of that code provides for the receipt of assist- ance by all who are. eligible “with due consideration for the . needs of applicants and the safeguarding of public funds.” ‘The burgeoning population of the State of California has : created unprecedented and unpredictable demands on the public resources. Despite the budgeting for the fiscal year _ 1967-1968 of over $406,000, 000 for the Public Assistance euch person shall be. eligible only for temporary ‘sid or care. til arrangements are made for his return, provided. in- ~ eligibility for Aid to Dependent Children shall not continue beyond the maximum federal resid requirement.” 4. Jurisdictional Statement, Appendix A, pp. 13, a: ‘5. Id. p. 21. ti ae ees : peal: not including health. -services,° the benefit levela of the: programs are still below the minimgm standards of a health-and decency. be _.. "There 4s:no basis for « glistiig to the California, Lexis: a ae, lature an intent to exclude indigent persons from migrat-' ing’ to ‘California. or to discriminate unconstitutionally ' against new residents ‘solely because it has a residence re- quirement: There ison the contrary, a real and legitimate _. ‘purpose, . made explicit by the California Legislature, to plan and budget, ona yearly basis, in order to maintain *, and, if possible, to advance existing benefit levels. Such— ae vs planning must be made within the limits of a more predict- able number of recipients « pable of being. forecast on the i tics, It is the only realistic way to _ | ~-allocate that scarce resource, public funds. To responsible ) citizens this is clearly a matter of compelling state ‘interést. | ¢ Edwards v. California, 314 U. S.-160 (1941). did not hold that the husbanding of public funds by a state was an un-" constitutional objective.: (id. p. 173) Edwards held that the -- means used by California, Le, a state statute making it a ” crime to bring an indigent person into--the state, thereby preventing or obstructing impoverished United States citi-. gens free ingress into the state, was unconstitutional. The . _ Court stated “Its [the statute’s] express purpose and in-. . ,evitable effect is to prohibit the transportation of indigent persons across the California border.” (id p. 174) This is — neither thg express purpose nor the inevitable effect of Cal- - jfornia Welfare & Institutions Code section 11252. In Flemming v. Nestor, 363 ‘US. 603, 611 (1960) this Court in sustaining a-cut-off provision of the Social geigiond Act observed, : ‘ “Jt ig not within our eiithdtity to dotantive whether the Congressional judgment poet in that section — ati, \ ~ 6. 1967 Bont Act, sec. 52.5. ’ 4 . ee a) is spriadl or: qiuitsble, or ‘whether it: icolaedl well’ a ee ill with the’purpose.of the act... wherf we deal witha - _ withholding of-a non-contractual benefit under-# social welfare program such as this, we must recognize that the due process clause can be thought to interpose a _ bar only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification utterly. locking 1 in rational urgent “The: California durations vaitinds reqtirement, con- cerning a non-contraetual benefit clearly has a rational justi- -. fieation. A necessary part of the legislative function isto get limits to a program, define eligibility-and draw botnda- - Ties. Certainly every welfare plan. classifies i in | wach 4 manner. But - “One who assails the lnéeification't in such a law has . ,. the burden of showing that it does not rest upon any reasonable is, but is essentially arbitrary. Lindsley . v. Nat. Carb0me Gas, 220 U.S. 61, 78-79 (1911)” Of course Aiestineal residence ceclrempile pat ae . result in some hardships. This fact i is always a mean ‘ - of drawing a line. ~ But es le *A classification having some reasonable basis does not offend against [the Equal Protection] clause’ mere- ly because it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. ” (Ibid.) ; ‘That hardships scobethauhy may redult tiie dicatioadl residence requirements does™ not make the requirements un- " constitutional but is only relevant to the legislative wisdom —_ in retaining them. ‘As pointed out in Ferguson v. Skrupa,. . 372 U.S. 726, 729-730 (1963) it is the classic function of the . legislature to decide on the wisdom of legislation. This Court declared that “Courts should not extend even express _. if Se ; seisbthldians of the etnatitation beyond their ‘obvious mean- - ; \ ’ v4 . 4 7 ais ° ’ . ; f \ ’ ‘ , "ing by reading into them conceptions of public policy that _ »- thé particular court may entértain”. Particularly relevant . ° jg the further statement “We have returned to the. original *.gonstitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economical beliefs for the judgment of legislative - bodies who are elected to pass laws”. (id. p. 730) The appel- : -lee herein and the piaintiffg in the. similar California case are quite clearly asking the courts to supplant what is purely ’ a legislative determination with’ social opinions which they . - believe to be more enlightenéd. This Court has not been ‘unmindful of the burdens on state finances. In Madden v. Commonwealth of Ky., 309 U.S. - 83, 98 (1989) the’ Court held: _'#An interpretation of the privilege and iuiiaatty clause which restricts the power of the states to man- peel ir own fiscal affairs is a matter of gravest con- them# It is only the emphatic requirements of / the » cataiditeation, which properly may lead the federal _ courts to such a conclusion.” There is no requirement in tie Constitution that man- a dates a state to afford relief to all or dny of its needy resi- dents regardless of the period of their residence. That this — succor is socially desirable few would deny. That California has an obligation to supply unpolluted air and water, ade- quate schools, highways, hospitals, protective services to all of its- citizens none would deny: But it does not follow that~ the non-diseriminatory residence requir¢ments of California — | law amount ‘to an unreasonable classification within the: meaning of theffqual Protection Clause. _ , \ \ \ _— Il... The Constitutionally Protected Right of Interstate Travel and Settlement in the State of One's Choice Does Not Eacompass Travel or Settlenhent hoes It is contended-that durational residence requirements Ns infringe on the right to-travel freely from state to state. The court below held that Connecticut’s residence Tequire- . ment uncongtitutionally abridged that. right because it has a “chilling effect” on the right to travel.” California’s statute has not been such an impadinneatt as to prevent in-migration to Californie. of 1, 122,204 persons | during the period 1955-1960. California’s population has | increased by about 25 peregnt since the 1960 census.° ‘. The court below correctly points out that the “right to travel” cases” decided prior to U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1965) have been concerned with absolute proscriptions on - movement.”" But Guest does not, as the court below held, _ proscribe such fancied “chilling effects” on the constitution-. ally protected right to travel as to prohibit’a state’s denial of instant free room and board when the right to travel and _ take up residence i in Connecticut or California has been fully ay exercised. This is particularly trne when a state retains its durational residence requirement in order to budget its lim- _ited resources for equitable distribution among the me rightful demands of its citizens. . , The charged conspiracy in U8. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, oo 760 and the statute considered in Edwards.v. Califorma, otf US. 160 (1941) intentionally, and purposely discouraged 1. Jurisdictional Statement, Appendix A, 19 | 8. U.S. Bureau of the Census PO(2)-28 Mobility for States | "and State Economic Areas. ' 9. Silver et al. v. Reagan, et al., 67 Adv. Cal. Rota. 455, 460. 10. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965); Aptheker v. Secretary _ of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) ; ; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 E08): 11. Jurisdictional Statement, Append A, 18. 3 10. ae gee Ladobotats tamvel th tho /Atet instance of negro citisens-and + $n the seeond the indigent. These cases are inapplicable to California’s residence requirements. _’ * Similarly the State of Sonth Carolina’s appli¢ation of its . - . Unemployment, Compensation Act in Sherbert:v. Verner, . 8740.8, 398-410 (1962) was held “to constrain a worker. _ ae abandon his religious convictions respecting the day of ee rest,” and constituted a permanent infringement of a First io ". Amendment freedom. California’s durational residence re- ° _ quirement for AFDC eligibility does not constitute a pro- -’ ae scription on movement or the exercise of any other consti- - tationally protected right. There is no. conspiracy to “im- “ ‘ pede” anyone from entering and residing in California. There i is no predominant or even subordinate infent to “op- press” anyone from exercising his right of interstate travel. California’s statutory plan for administration of its. _ AFDC program, including its durational residenee require- _ ment, does not explicitly or implicitly have for its purpose discouragement of interstate ‘travel by indigents. There is. ° ". a complete lack of any authority or evidence for the conclu- sion that durational residence requirements have a “chill- ing effect” on the constitutionally protected right to free: travel between the state and the oporamaers right to, estab: lish residence where one pleases. The appellee Vivian Thompson and the plaintiffs in sim- ilar cases now in course of litigation in'several states were . not discouraged by durational residence requirements from ‘entering and taking ‘up. residence in the. states involved. _- These litigants are endeavoring to exact a money grant: from the state in order to exercise their right to. establish a The chilling’effect on the exercise of First Amendinent rights -by the Louisiana penal statutes scrutinized by the Court in Dam- . broski v. Pfister, 380.U.8. 479, 487 (1964), was grounded on the actual prosecutions initiated-and' threatened under those statutes. | . ey Fs ‘@ ‘gee JM . residence where they please. N one of the cases relied upon: by the court below directly or indirectly hold that’ there is «| a constitutional right to‘ be subsidized by. the state p of. one’s - ' chosen residence. ’ . ‘Professor Harvith’ ’s esecrtion that ‘clearly, residends tests ‘affect interstate movement” is pure speculation. Tt’ is reached in one leap ffom the statement that this is so “if. the potential migrant recognizes his situation‘ and reacts - sensibly.” int No study is cited to sustain the thesis that dura- _ tional residence requirements i in 1 fact constitute a significant deterrent to migration. | : The statute involved’ in “Edwards v. California, 314 U. S: _160 (1941); imposing criminal sanctions on those who trans- ported indigent persons into California, did prevent and - was enacted to prevent non-resident indigénts from coming into the state. It constituted an actual limit on the right to travel freely between the states.’ Mdwards did aot hold that . the state had an obligation to tupport immediately or at: all, everyone entering the state who decided to-stay. It was the attempt to prohibit directly the transportation of indi- '. gent non-residents into the state that was condemned by the Edwards court in holding the statute violated the commerce clausé’® ( majority opinion) and the rights of national ia zenshjp (concurring opinions). We agree that every citizen of- the United States has the right to travel freely from state to state (with certain ex- ceptions. not herein releVant). We disagree that, there’ is a 13; . Harvith, The Constitutionality of Residence Tests for Gen- ' eral’ and Categorical Assistance Programs, 54 Calif. L, Rev. 567, :— 580 (1966). P ADO f OY ea - 15. The commerce clause (U.S. Const. art. I, section 8, el. 3) is clearly inapplicable in yiew of the Congressional. permission of / si 627 hs ete, 42 U.S.C. -§ 602(b) (2). (1964)), ; B23 \" . / ” a) ’ . a public assistance residence requirement up to one year oe Stat. ec fs sinatitationally guatebined right to be subsic ised by either - the state from which one wishes to depart or the state to ~~ Justice. ‘Douglas’ reference to free ingress and, egress and the right to free movement in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S at p. 181. Mr. Justice Douglas has firmly repudiated this’ notion by stating, “The fact that the government can- ' not pxact : from me a surrender of one iota of my religious scruples does not, of course, mean that I can demand. of gOov- ernment a sum.of money; the better to exercise theni. For . the Free Exercise Clause ig:written in terms of what the government cannot do’ fo: the individual, not in ¢erms of what the individual can exact from the*government. ” Sher- - bert v. Verner, 3. Ss. 398, 442 (1963) er opinion. - Fae CONCLUSION ae & Iti is submitted that for the foregoing reasons the. eonsti- - tutional questions presented by,, this appeal are substantial. Dated: November 29, 1967 - Respectfully submitted, est Tainan C. Liwos: a . . ¥ .Attorney General of the State ne _ of California ; EuizapeTa Pitmer ‘ Deputy Attorney General - Rees. cet | - . Attorneys.for State of © | eon he orga California — ; 7 . . Amicus Curiae a Sweeney v. State beord: of Public Assistance, (D.C. P.A. ) . -86 F.Supp. 171, 174, affirmed 3 Cir. 119 F.2d 1023, cert. den. 314 U.S. 611, (the same term as re the court similarly disposed “ of alike argument. ie ea 2% » , - sm) which oie wishes to migrate. It is absurd to so: aistort Mr. | --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0083%3A07. Public record. Not legal advice.