Shapiro v. Thompson

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1969 United States Supreme Court case

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

**Shapiro v. Thompson **

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), is 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. Shapiro was a part of a set of three welfare cases all heard during the 1968–69 term by the Supreme Court, alongside Harrell v. Tobriner and Smith v. Reynolds. Additionally, Shapiro, _King v. Smith _ (1968), and _Goldberg v. Kelly _ (1970) comprise the "Welfare Cases", a set of successful Supreme Court cases that dealt with welfare.

Shapiro was not about the issue of welfare per se, but rather about the restrictions to the right to travel and possible violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The question posed by Shapiro was whether Congress, in writing Section 602(b) of the Social Security Act , overstepped its regulating powers by giving states the ability to restrict travel. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights given in the Constitution.

In 1969, 43 states had a residency requirement in effect, declared unconstitutional by Shapiro. Within those 43 states, it is estimated by the court that at least 100,000 people - minimum - were unable to get welfare aid. By 1970, there was a 17% increase in those nationally receiving AFDC aid due to Shapiro. : 87–89 

Facts of the case

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shapiro_v._Thompson&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Facts of the case")
]

Vivian M. Thompson was a 19-year-old mother of one child and was pregnant with another. The case states that, due to her pregnancy, she was unable to work. Vivian M. Thompson moved from the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts , to Hartford, Connecticut , in June 1966 to live with her mother. When her mother was no longer able to support her, Vivian and her infant son moved to her own apartment in Hartford in August 1966. The Legal Services Program (LSP), when seeking cases, looked for those that were both 'sympathetic' and likely to 'outrage' to argue in the Supreme Court. The situation of Vivian M. Thompson presented such a case in the eyes of the LSP. : 54 

In November 1966, the State of Connecticut Department of Welfare denied Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits to Thompson due to Section 17-2d provision of the Connecticut General Statutes. Connecticut's provision, Section 17-2d, did not allow the state to provide welfare aid to any person who did not have residency in the state for at least a year before their application was filed. AFDC received funding from both the state and federal government, allowing Connecticut to create such a requirement. States such as Connecticut that receive federal funding for their welfare programs may have, at a minimum, a one-year residency period via Section 602(b) 42 of the Social Security Act.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shapiro_v._Thompson&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Background")
]

The Legal Services Program (LSP) was created in 1965, as a department within the Office of Economic Opportunity . They provided counsel to primarily poor, working-class people and in the late 1960s focused on women's welfare issues. They brought 164 cases to the Supreme Court through 1966–1974. Their case work and dedication to shifting policy opened the door for cases such as Shapiro.

Shapiro v. Thompson was the second successful 'welfare test case' to change welfare rights in laws, policies, and procedures. The idea to shift welfare rights from a privilege to a legal right : 48–50  was suggested by Edward Sparer, considered the 'father of welfare law'. He served as the primary counsel for both NWRO , Center for Social Welfare Policy and Law (CSWPL), and was a member of the LSP through Columbia's Law School. The LSP used Sparer's intellectual framework to litigate 164 cases before the Supreme Court by 1974, providing legal support to primarily poor Americans and specifically poor mothers in shifting welfare policies. : 10  This form of 'legal civil disobedience', as Felicia Kornbluh a legal historian argues, was adopted from African American freedom movements and the NAACP 's legal actions in desegregating schools.

The CSWPL was surprised that the District Court for the District of Connecticut sided with the LSP lawyers, and that the Supreme Court allowed it onto its docket in 1969. CSWPL believed there was little chance the Supreme Court would affirm, and that it was a lost cause. This led to the involvement of Edward Sparer, who brought in Archibald Cox as the lead attorney for the rehearing in 1968. Jacqueline Jones, a social historian, articulates that Archibald Cox's involvement with this case was coordinated. Sparer brought in Cox's legal assistance as he was the solicitor general, well-respected, and a recognized face by the Warren Court.

District court for the district of Connecticut, civ. no. 11821

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shapiro_v._Thompson&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: District court for the district of Connecticut, civ. no. 11821")
]

Thompson v. Shapiro was argued in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and the court's decision was rendered on June 19, 1967. The plaintiff (Thompson) was represented by Brian L. Hollander, while the defense (State of Connecticut) was represented by Francis J. MacGregor, the Assistant Attorney General for Connecticut. The case was heard before Judges T. Emmet Claire , Mosher Joseph Blumenfeld , and J. Joseph Smith , resulting in a 2–1 majority decision in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in favor of Thompson.

Opinion

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shapiro_v._Thompson&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Opinion")
]

The majority opinion, held by Judge Smith in favor of the plaintiff (Thompson), declared that residency waiting periods for welfare via Section 17-2d were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinion stated that it "has a chilling effect on the right to travel". They believed that a one-year residency requirement had no 'permissible purpose' other than to discourage the movement of people who may seek welfare from moving to Connecticut. The United States Constitution holds that people may move from one place to another within the United States, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that this right may not be interfered with by states, as established in _United States v. Guest _.

Connecticut, in its own words in the Connecticut Welfare Manual, aimed to dissuade people who may need welfare from taking up residence in Connecticut, thus impeding their right to interstate travel. Hollander, representing the plaintiff, sought an injunction against Section 17-2d, asserting that its enforcement was unconstitutional. While states have the authority to regulate their own state aid programs, it was decided that Connecticut discriminated against Thompson arbitrarily.

Dissent

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shapiro_v._Thompson&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Dissent")
]

In the dissenting opinion, written by Judge Claire, he disagreed that Section 17-2d of the Connecticut General Statutes was unconstitutional. Judge Claire acknowledged that a state's regulation of any program might not be well-thought-out, but he argued that it is not the District Court's job to change. Connecticut is not the o

…