Ehrlich v. Perez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Welfare Reform Act’s “laissez faire ... approach to granting discretionary authority to the States in deciding whether to continue State-funded medical benefits” for certain aliens does not amount to a “single, uniform, and articulated directive”
• holding that the PRWORA prescribes no uniform rule and applying strict scrutiny
• holding that the Welfare Reform Act’s “laissez faire ... approach to granting discretionary authority to the States in deciding whether to continue State-funded medical benefits” for certain aliens does not amount to a “single, uniform, and articulated directive”
• holding that the Welfare Reform Act’s “laissez faire . . . approach to granting discretionary authority to the States in deciding whether to continue State-funded medical benefits” for certain aliens does not amount to a “single, uniform, and articulated directive”
• adopting the Aliessa court’s reasoning, applying strict scrutiny review, and concluding that appropriations legislation that eliminated funding for benefits to certain resident aliens who immigrated after August 22, 1996, violated equal protection
• “ ‘[EJven with respect to a discretionary matter, a trial court must exercise its discretion in accordance with correct legal standards.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).