Shapiro v. Thompson

A test was created in Shapiro for determining when state waiting period requirements hindered the right to travel and thus prompted "strict scrutiny," and when they did not. This test was criticized for being vague, but the Court did more finely define it in subsequent cases. Over the next 20 years, the question of the constitutionality of such requirements seemed settled. The Court in the 1989 Eddleman v. Center Township case referred to "the old and well-established" standard set by Shapiro. Meanwhile, state waiting period requirements for welfare aid quickly began to evaporate after Shapiro, according to Clark Peterson in "The Resurgence of Durational Residence Requirements." Some were invalidated by the courts and others disappeared due to lack of enforcement. With residency requirements gone, asserted Todd Zubler in "The Right to Migrate and Welfare Reform," people on welfare began to move from state to state in greater numbers. This increased migration, he contended, caused individual states to keep lowering their welfare benefits to avoid becoming a "welfare magnet" state. So Shapiro, he concluded, created a dangerous "race to the bottom" among states. In the early 1990s a trend toward reactivating old requirements or enacting new ones began in some states, sometimes in open resistance to Shapiro, sometimes carefully worded to avoid its "strict scrutiny." Opinion is divided over whether these new requirements will fail for the reasons set out by Shapiro, or whether Shapiro will fail to survive future struggles over welfare reform.