Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Doe v. McIntire
No. 00-3014-F (Mass. Super. Ct. filed Mar. 14, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53851
Description
Massachusetts Court Rejects Equal Protection Challenge to Six-Month Residency Requirement for State’s Alien Cash Assistance Program
Abstract
A Massachusetts court held that the requirement that legal aliens
reside in the state six months before becoming eligible for cash
assistance from a state-funded welfare program did not violate the
equal protection clause of the federal or state constitution. Two
legal aliens who did not meet the residency requirement claimed, in
suing the commissioner of the state’s Department of
Transitional Assistance, that the requirement violated federal and
state equal protection guarantees, the privileges and immunities
clause of the U.S. Constitution, and limitations in the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act on state
authority to restrict benefits to immigrants. The residency
requirement is part of a program for legal immigrants who are
ineligible for federal cash assistance. The court granted
defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the
constitutional issues. The court found that the residency
requirement did not conflict with the exclusive federal power to
regulate immigration because it was the type of requirement the Act
authorized to the states. The court applied a rational-basis
analysis to the equal protection claim because it concluded that
the state legislature acted benignly toward aliens by creating a
program to ameliorate the hardship of their exclusion from federal
benefits; the government classification affected only a subgroup of
aliens; and the classification did not disadvantage citizens.
Following U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the court found the
residency requirement constitutional under the rational-basis test.
