Shapiro v. Thompson
Significance, The Right To Interstate Travel, Legitimate Government Objectives?, Impact, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families
Vivian Marie Thompson
Shapiro, Commissioner of Welfare of Connecticut
That the denial of state and the District of Columbia welfare benefits to residents of less than one year is discriminatory and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Francis J. MacGregor
Justices for the Court
William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), William O. Douglas, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall, Potter Stewart, Byron R. White
Hugo Lafayette Black, John Marshall Harlan II, Earl Warren
Date of Decision
21 April 1969
Affirmed the decisions of three district courts which found various state and District of Columbia welfare residency requirements unconstitutional.
- The Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849).
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972).
- Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974).
- Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975).
- Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982).
- Attorney General v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986).
Grigsby III, J. Eugene. "Welfare Reform Means Business as Usual." Journal of the American Planning Association, winter 1998.
- Sherbert v. Verner - Legal Context, High Court Reverses, Dissenting Opinion, Sherbert Test
- See v. City of Seattle - Significance, Protection From Administrative Searches, Impact, Related Cases
- Shapiro v. Thompson - Significance
- Shapiro v. Thompson - Further Readings
- Shapiro v. Thompson - The Right To Interstate Travel
- Shapiro v. Thompson - Legitimate Government Objectives?
- Shapiro v. Thompson - Impact
- Shapiro v. Thompson - Temporary Assistance For Needy Families
- Other Free Encyclopedias