Also known as: durational residency requirement · residency requirements
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A state law that conditions eligibility for a government benefit or privilege on the applicant having resided in the jurisdiction for a specified minimum period. Such requirements create two classes of residents and are subject to strict scrutiny when they penalize the exercise of the right to interstate travel.
Deborah Dunn moved from one state to another for work and applied for general relief cash assistance two months later. State officials denied her application solely because she had not yet lived in the state for a full year. The denial forced Deborah to choose between forgoing needed subsistence support or returning to her prior state.
Darrell Duncan passed the bar exam after moving from another state but was told he must wait one year before admission. Officials cited concerns that out-of-state lawyers might not stay current with local rules. The waiting period prevented Darrell from practicing law immediately despite meeting all other qualifications.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dylan Duffy sought admission by reciprocity after relocating and satisfying every substantive requirement except the state's six-month residency rule. The board rejected his application on the ground that recent arrivals might not contribute to local pro bono work. Dylan remained unable to practice while longer-term residents faced no such delay.
Denise Donovan moved to a new state and sought to run for Congress after living there only eight months. State law required candidates to have resided in the district for one year before the election. The rule blocked Denise from appearing on the ballot despite her current residency and intent to remain.
Daphne Doyle moved to a new state with her children and filed for divorce after four months. The court dismissed the petition because state law imposed a one-year durational residency requirement for divorce actions. Daphne had to wait eight additional months before the court would hear her case.
Deanna Davenport relocated to a new state and applied for cash assistance at the higher benefit level available to long-term residents. Officials granted her only the lower amount paid to new arrivals because she had lived in the state less than twelve months. The reduced payment left Deanna unable to cover basic living expenses during her first year.
They trigger strict scrutiny when they penalize the fundamental right to travel by denying benefits or privileges to new residents that are available to longer-term residents. Courts apply this standard to welfare eligibility rules and similar classifications that create two classes of residents based solely on length of stay.
No. Protecting the state treasury or discouraging indigent migration is not a constitutionally permissible objective. Courts have rejected these rationales because they directly burden the right to interstate travel.
They are reviewed under the Privileges and Immunities Clause rather than equal protection alone. States must show a substantial justification for discriminating against nonresidents in the pursuit of a common calling such as law practice.
No. Requirements for divorce jurisdiction have been upheld when they serve interests such as ensuring the stability of decrees, while welfare and certain benefit rules have been struck down. The outcome depends on the nature of the benefit and the burden on the right to travel.
…did not seek to intervene or to file an amicus brief. Reasoning that PRWORA permitted, but did not require, States to impose durational residency requirements, Judge Levi concluded that the existence of the federal statute did not affect the legal analysis in his prior opinion in Green . He did, however, make certain additional comments on the…