California Welfare Law Worries U.S. High Court

A number of U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed concern Wednesday about a California law that would limit welfare benefits paid to new state residents.

During arguments before the high court, California Deputy Atty. Gen. Theodore Garelis defended the law, which would limit new residents’ benefits for their first year to the amount they received in the state where they previously lived.

Garelis said the law--which has never gone into effect because of a court challenge--would result in an estimated yearly saving of $22.8 million.

He sought to convince the skeptical justices that the 1997 law, adopted as part of an effort to reform the welfare system, would not impair an individual’s fundamental right to travel from state to state.

But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said the law would have such an impact. For example, she said, it would cut welfare benefits for a family of four from the minimum $600 a month that California would pay to the $300 a month or less they had received in another state with a lower cost of living.

“This has grave consequences for that family,” she said.

Justice John Paul Stevens picked up on the example, asking how $300 could be adequate if $600 was the state’s minimum amount. “Anything less is not adequate,” he said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the genius of the United States is the long-standing principle--upheld in a series of Supreme Court cases--that a newcomer to a state should be treated the same as a long-term resident.

Garelis said the California benefits stipulation was only “temporary,” lasting just a year, and that it was not an “absolute denial of benefits.” He maintained that it would not deter people from moving to California.

Mark Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, representing welfare recipients who challenged the law, said it should be struck down for interfering with an individual’s fundamental right to travel.

The Supreme Court will rule on the case by the end of June.