Saenz v. Roe
E21553
Saenz v. Roe is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down California’s welfare residency requirements and reaffirmed the constitutional right to travel under the Fourteenth Amendment.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Saenz v. Roe canonical | 5 |
| Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) | 1 |
| Saenz, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Roe et al. | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T132271 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Saenz v. Roe Context triple: [Privileges and Immunities Clause, keyCase, Saenz v. Roe]
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
C.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a landmark 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion while allowing greater state regulation under the “undue burden” standard.
-
E.
Doe v. Bolton
Doe v. Bolton is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that, alongside Roe v. Wade, expanded and defined the scope of abortion rights by striking down restrictive state regulations.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Saenz v. Roe Target entity description: Saenz v. Roe is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down California’s welfare residency requirements and reaffirmed the constitutional right to travel under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
A.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
B.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
C.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
D.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a landmark 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion while allowing greater state regulation under the “undue burden” standard.
-
E.
Doe v. Bolton
Doe v. Bolton is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that, alongside Roe v. Wade, expanded and defined the scope of abortion rights by striking down restrictive state regulations.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (51)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Fourteenth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ right to travel case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
civil rights
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ welfare law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1999-01-13 ⓘ |
| citation | 526 U.S. 489 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
linked to:
Fourteenth Amendment
Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
linked to:
Privileges and Immunities Clause
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1999-05-17 ⓘ |
| decisionType | landmark decision ⓘ |
| defendant |
California Department of Social Services
ⓘ
Saenz ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| distinguishedFrom | Slaughter-House Cases ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 98-97 ⓘ |
| doctrine | revival of the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a source of substantive rights ⓘ |
| followedPrecedent |
Shapiro v. Thompson
ⓘ
United States v. Guest ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Saenz, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Roe et al.
ⓘ
linked to:
Saenz v. Roe
|
| holding |
California's durational residency requirement for full welfare benefits violates the Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
states may not discriminate against new residents in the distribution of welfare benefits ⓘ the right to travel includes the right of newly arrived citizens to be treated the same as longer-term citizens of a state ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ David H. Souter ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sandra Day O'Connor ⓘ
linked to:
Sandra Day O’Connor
Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ |
| legalIssue | constitutionality of California's welfare residency requirements ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple | citizens of the United States have a right to become citizens of any state and be treated equally there ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | John Paul Stevens ⓘ |
| originatingJurisdiction | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ⓘ |
| overturnedLawOrPolicy | California statute limiting welfare benefits for new residents to the level of their prior state of residence ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Roe ⓘ |
| precedentFor | cases challenging state discrimination against new residents ⓘ |
| reargued | no ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
durational residency requirement
ⓘ
equal citizenship ⓘ federalism ⓘ |
| result | California welfare residency requirement struck down ⓘ |
| rightRecognized |
constitutional right to travel between states
ⓘ
right of newly arrived state citizens to equal treatment ⓘ |
| stateInvolved |
California
ⓘ
linked to:
California, United States
|
| typeOfRestrictionChallenged | welfare benefit limitation for new residents ⓘ |
| vote | 7-2 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1999 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Saenz v. Roe Description of subject: Saenz v. Roe is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down California’s welfare residency requirements and reaffirmed the constitutional right to travel under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Saenz v. Roe
→
fullCaseName
→
Saenz, Director, California Department of Social Services, et al. v. Roe et al.
ⓘ
linked to: Saenz v. Roe
subject linked to:
Roe
linked to: Saenz v. Roe