Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Graham v. Richardson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionAlienageWelfare BenefitsFederal PreemptionEqual Protection Clausealienagestrict scrutiny

Facts

Arizona conditioned certain welfare benefits on either United States citizenship or, for aliens, 15 years' residence in the United States; Carmen Richardson was a lawfully admitted resident alien who otherwise qualified for disability benefits but was denied solely because she had not met the 15-year requirement. Pennsylvania's general assistance program made needy persons eligible if they were citizens, and lawfully admitted resident aliens Elsie Leger and Beryl Jervis were denied assistance solely because of alienage. In both states, the plaintiffs were resident aliens otherwise meeting the substantive welfare criteria except for the citizenship or alien residency restriction. The parties stipulated in the Pennsylvania case that denial of assistance caused hardship and discouraged indigent resident aliens from remaining in the state.

Issue

Whether the Equal Protection Clause permits a state to condition welfare benefits on United States citizenship or, if the applicant is an alien, on a specified number of years of residence in the United States. Also, whether such state alienage restrictions on welfare are inconsistent with federal authority and policy governing aliens.

Rule

Lawfully admitted resident aliens are persons entitled to equal protection, and state classifications based on alienage are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny. A state may not deny welfare benefits to resident aliens, or condition such benefits on a long national residency requirement for aliens, based on a desire to preserve limited resources for citizens; such restrictions also impermissibly encroach upon exclusive federal power over immigration and naturalization when they burden the entrance or residence of lawfully admitted aliens.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Colorado creates a state-funded emergency cash program for indigent adults. The statute makes all otherwise eligible applicants eligible immediately if they are United States citizens, but requires lawfully admitted permanent residents to wait until they have held that status for eight years before applying. The state says the rule helps reserve scarce benefits for citizens.

If challenged by a lawfully admitted permanent resident denied benefits solely because of that rule, how should a court most likely rule?

Explanation. Lawfully admitted resident aliens are persons entitled to equal protection. The majority held that state classifications based on alienage are inherently suspect and therefore subject to close judicial scrutiny. A state's desire to preserve limited welfare resources for citizens is inadequate to justify denying benefits to resident aliens or conditioning benefits on a long national residency requirement.