Talk:Shapiro v. Thompson

Untitled
The Case History section needs work: "Thompson brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut where a three-judge panel, one judge dissenting, declared the provision of Connecticut law unconstitutional"

That sentence makes it sound like it was the U.S. District Count of CT that made the decision.

Drummike (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Over-ruled?
In this wiki, under "Laws applied", it states that the "right to Travel" decision was overruled in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974).

but when I read that case they don't even relate to the same thing, so is this a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.233.11 (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Home as an Idea and a Place
— Assignment last updated by Heinzam (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Overall Changes
Lead Section: I have added a lot of information to expand this section, with a focus on legal clarity and access to information. I update the Lead section, to accurately reflect the case and the new information on the page. I have added more clarification about the case, details, and improved citations within that section as well. My updated lead is now available on the live page, the original only had two citations and a copy is below.

Original: "Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated state durational residency requirements for public assistance and helped establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights given in the Constitution."

Facts of the case: The original Case History section was unclear and lacked any citations. The original page was particularly confusing regarding the decision of the U.S. District Court of Connecticut and the Supreme Court. A copy of the original is below.

Original: "The Connecticut Welfare Department invoked Connecticut law denying an application for Aid to Families with Dependent Children assistance to appellee Vivian Marie Thompson, a 19-year-old pregnant unwed mother of one child, because she had changed her residence in June 1966 from the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, to Hartford, Connecticut, to live with her mother. When her mother was no longer able to support her, she and her infant son moved to her own apartment in Hartford in August 1966. Thompson could not work or enter a work training program. Her application for assistance, filed in August 1966, was denied in November solely on the ground that she had not lived in the State for a year before her application was filed, a requirement under Connecticut law."

The confusion in this section stemmed from the Supreme Court heavily citing the District Court decision in both the majority and dissent. In my revisions, I included both the majority and dissent for both court decisions. I also took care to clarify the legal dispute at issue for Thompson and Connecticut, specifically the Section 17-2d provision.

Background: I included a background section about the context of the case because it involved significant figures whose contributions were crucial to its success. There was no similar section on the original page. Without the involvement of Sparer and LSP, Cox would never have been brought into the case, and it likely would not have been affirmed in the Supreme Court. This background section provides information that a reader might not find unless they delve into the details of the case, as I did.

District Court: I added a District court section in place of a Case history section. I did this because as mentioned in the talk page the case history section mashes both the the District of Connecticut decision and the Supreme Court decision. And as it is so heavily cited by the Supreme Court it deserves its own section.

Original (Now deleted) Case History Section: "Thompson brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut where a three-judge panel, one judge dissenting, declared the provision of Connecticut law unconstitutional, holding that the waiting-period requirement is unconstitutional because it "has a chilling effect on the right to travel" and also holding that the provision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "because the denial of relief to those residents in the State for less than a year is not based on any permissible purpose but is solely designed, as 'Connecticut states quite frankly,' 'to protect its fisc by the discouraging entry of those who come needing relief'" (decision of the Court).

This case examined laws that required a period of residence in a jurisdiction before welfare benefits would become available to a new resident. The state asserted that its interest in requiring this waiting period was to deter needy citizens from other states from coming to the state for the sole purpose of receiving superior welfare benefits. The Court held that the purpose of inhibiting the migration of needy people was a constitutionally impermissible objective. The state also argued that this requirement was an attempt to apportion services based on how much residence has contributed (i.e. longer residence means more taxes paid) but such apportionment is not allowed under the Equal protection clause.

The state asserted that the requirement served the state's interest in efficient administration of welfare by providing an objective test of residence, allowing for planning a budget, minimizing fraud, and encouraging entry into the workforce before seeking welfare."

I chose to delete the Case History section because I split it into the Background, District Court and Supreme Court sections. Again because the Supreme Court majority decision uses arguments and quotes from the District of Connecticut it is confusing. However, separating these sections will add clarity for the reader. I am of course adding more citations to all the listed sections as there is none in the Case history section.

 Supreme Court: In the Supreme Court section, I broke down the case as much as possible for clarity and added subsections so that readers can easily find the information they are looking for. This section did not previously exist. This case is particularly confusing in some places, such as the changeover of attorneys, and including that information is important for that reason. The hearing timelines are crucial for understanding how complicated this case was among the Justices. Despite being generally considered very liberal, Justice Warren made a decision notably that differs significantly from his stance in other welfare-based cases. Much of the timeline information was cited from Jordan Lampo's legal article, 'The Last Days of the Warren Court: How Justice Brennan Orchestrated Shapiro v. Thompson (1969).' Lampo had to have meticulously gone through individual boxes and read hundreds of memos that are not available to everyone. Including this information on this page and linking back to Lampo's article allows that information to be accessible.

I deleted both the "Decision of the Court" and "Dissenting opinions" sections. They became subsection subjects in the Supreme Court section. They did not have really any citations and were very unclear. See the a copy of the original below.

Original (Now deleted) Decision of the Court: "Because the constitutional right to free movement between states was implicated, the Court applied a standard of strict scrutiny and held none of these interests were sufficient to sustain the waiting requirement. The Court held that there was no evidence that the requirement would make planning a budget more predictable, and that if a waiting period encouraged new residents to enter the workforce it should also be applied to current residents, and that the interest in deterring fraud and having an objective verification of residence could be better served by less restrictive means (e.g. calling welfare recipients periodically).

Finally the Court rejected the argument that Congress had authorized the waiting period because Congress does not have the power to authorize violations of the equal protection clause.

The Court reaffirmed the right to travel under the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities clause in Saenz v. Roe (1999)."

Original (Now deleted) Dissenting opinions:"Chief Justice Warren, joined by Justice Black, dissented. Congress has the power to authorize these restrictions under the commerce clause. Under the commerce clause, Congress needs only a rational basis to a legitimate state interest, not a necessary relation to a compelling interest.

Justice Harlan also dissented, arguing that the requirement of a compelling interest and necessary relationship between the law and that interest serve as an example of intermediate scrutiny."

Legacy: In the Legacy Section I added information about the effects the case had, as it increased welfare rolls in a number of states. And I also included the rise and fall of welfare as a national subject that people supported. I also included subsections about the social and legal impacts so that the reader can quickly find information. This section did not exist in the original form of this article.

See Also: I kept the section "Also See" but completely overhauled this section. Some of the cases mentioned were not really that relevant to Shapiro as noted by the talk page comments. The added Cases section table and its explanation on the page are easy to read and clarify any questions. I think as well it would be easy to edit in the future if there is a change in case law.

Unavailable Referenced: This referenced material, crucial to the case, is no longer available as separate documents, and its original form as cited in 1968, including sections, manuals, and paragraphs, no longer exists. I reference legal sections or the manual frequently on this page because they are so important to the case, but they are not otherwise available to the reader. The information is now only accessible within the quoted excerpts present in the case material and provided below.

Overall there were not enough citations on this page, they were very limited. I brought in a number of citations, both primary and secondary sources. I mostly focused on legal historians or law reviews, because of the legal focus that I had when editing this page.