Political Psychology Saenz v. Roe PDF

Preview

Summary

Political Psychology Saenz v. Roe...

Description

Felicity Gomer Professor Fine POS4206 Political Psychology November 20, 2019 Saenz v. Roe

1. What is the name of the case? The name of the case in point is Saenz v. Roe. a) What is the name and professional/position title held by the petitioner in this case? The petitioner is Rita Saenz, the Director of California's Department of Social Services. b) What is the name and professional/position title held by the respondent in this case? The respondent is Brenda Roe, first-year resident of California seeking welfare benefits. 2. What is the “story” behind the case? When the state of California decided to enforce the PRWORA and pay the TANF benefit amount of another state to residents who have lived in the state for less than twelve months, Brenda Roe (a new California resident) challenged the constitutionality of it, suggesting that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. 3. Is this a 14th amendment case? Explain your answer.

This is a Fourteenth Amendment case in that it affects a citizen’s right to travel freely amongst the states, and the privilege to be treated like a long-term resident of the state. Changes to welfare benefits act as a deterrent for people looking to relocate to another state, and does not allow them to be treated like a true resident. 4. Discuss the three strongest arguments favoring the State of California’s position in this case? Be specific.

Justice Rehnquist mentioned that the Privileges and Immunities Clause had only been depended on one time since its creation. The institution in California indicates a “good faith residency requirement” and shouldn’t be interrupted by a reference to the PIC. An additional strong argument in favor of the state was that the PIC was interpreted too broadly simply to be used in the plaintiff’s favor (Justice Thomas). 5. Discuss the three weakest arguments favoring the State of California’s position in this case? Be specific. The weakest argument in favor of the State was that the case at hand was not a study of Fourteenth Amendment implications, as it was simply a deterrent for relocating citizens but did not prevent them from moving freely throughout the country. Additionally, a second weak argument was that there is “no detriment” to a person moving from a higher cost state to a lower cost state, but being charged the same high amount in State 2 anyway. This is clearly untrue, if money is the driving force here. Moving to another state specifically for a higher welfare benefit and instead receiving the same low benefit you’d received in your prior state is a detriment to the person moving. The third argument proving to be weak in favor of the state is the idea that

people come to a state with a higher welfare benefit just to “collect a benefit and go” (Justice Ginsburg), when in actuality they typically relocate for welfare purposes looking for a place to stay permanently. 6. What was the Supreme Court’s decision in this case? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe, stating that the Fourteenth Amendment allows for the free travel amongst all US states with the right for both new residents and new citizens to receive equal treatment in each one. The fact that Roe and plaintiffs represented were long-standing citizens under the protection of the Constitution indicated that to refuse them these civil rights was in violation of the aforementioned amendment and was therefore discriminatory. Empirical studies of relocating citizens found that the number of them moving due to increased welfare benefits elsewhere was small. 7. Read the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in this case. Note: the U.S. Supreme Court case opinion in Saenz v. Roe may be found on the course home page. a) Identify and discuss three key arguments posited by the majority. Justice Stevens recognizes, in his majority written opinion, that citizens of the US have a constitutional right to travel, be recognized as a resident, and be recognized as a citizen, disregarding the amount of time one has held such a title. If one moves to California, they become a citizen of California. Citizens are treated equally, point blank. This means that the state cannot discriminate between new residents and over-one-year residents in terms of welfare benefits, because all citizens of California will receive the welfare benefits as instituted by the state of California. He states the following: “…their need for welfare benefits is unrelated to the length of time they have resided in California…”.

A second key argument expressed in the majority opinion is that California’s decision to enact the controversial law in PROWRA was a purely fiscal decision, and was not intended to deter anyone from entering the state, but rather was meant to save over $10 million every year. However, although unintentional, they did breach the Fourteenth Amendment because a newlyarrived citizen has a right to the same privileges and immunities as enjoyed by every other citizen. Thirdly, Justice Stevens mentions the unacceptability of a “hierarchy of subclasses”, meaning a citizen is a citizen is a citizen. No tiers may be associated with citizenship, privileges, and immunities, as all of these things are rightfully given to every American citizen and cannot be discriminated against. b) Who wrote the majority opinion? Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority court opinion. c) Identify and discuss three key argument posited by the minority. Justice Rehnquist mentioned that the Privileges and Immunities Clause had only been depended on one time since its creation. The institution in California indicates a “good faith residency requirement” and shouldn’t be interrupted by a reference to the PIC. An additional strong argument in favor of the state was that the PIC was interpreted too broadly simply to be used in the plaintiff’s favor (Justice Thomas). d) Who wrote the minority opinion? Justices Thomas and Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinion...