Could Maine constitutionally require people to live in Maine for a certain period of time before becoming eligible for TANF or Medicaid?

Subject

Whether Maine could constitutionally impose a durational residency requirement (a minimum waiting period in Maine before eligibility) for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid programs administered by the State.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Plain-English summary

In 2010, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner asked Attorney General Janet Mills (who later became Maine's Governor) whether the State could constitutionally adopt a "durational residency requirement" for TANF and Medicaid. A durational residency requirement would have made new arrivals to Maine wait some period of time (e.g., one year) before qualifying for benefits.

The AG concluded that any such requirement would have been unconstitutional. Two key Supreme Court precedents controlled:

• Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) struck down one-year durational residency requirements imposed by D.C., Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. The Court held the requirements violated the Fourteenth Amendment by penalizing the constitutionally protected right to interstate travel and by failing strict scrutiny.
• Saenz v. Roe (1999) reinforced Shapiro, striking down California's two-tier benefits scheme that paid lower benefits to recent arrivals. The Court relied on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The AG explained that states may verify current residency (require proof someone actually lives in the state), but they cannot impose a minimum duration of residency before benefits become available. The right to travel includes the right to be treated equally upon arrival.

The opinion responded to legislative proposals discussed in 2010 to add such requirements; the AG flagged that any enacted version would face immediate constitutional challenge and likely fail.

Common questions

Q: Was a durational residency requirement enacted in Maine?

The AG opinion answered the constitutional question; whether the legislature acted on it is a separate factual question. As of 2010, none had been enacted. Subsequent legislative history would need to be checked separately.

Q: Can Maine require proof of residency?

Yes. Shapiro and Saenz address only durational waiting periods, not residency itself. Maine can require applicants to show they currently live in Maine.

Q: Does this apply to other benefits like SNAP?

The AG's opinion focused on TANF and Medicaid because those were the programs the Commissioner asked about. The same constitutional reasoning applies to other state-administered benefits where the federal government allows state discretion in eligibility, but each program has its own federal-law overlay.

Q: What about non-citizens or recent immigrants?

The constitutional rule under Shapiro and Saenz protects citizens of the United States who move between states. Non-citizen eligibility is governed by separate federal law (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and subsequent amendments), which is a different analysis.

Background and statutory framework

The right to travel is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court has located its constitutional source variously in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause.

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), held that durational residency requirements for welfare benefits unconstitutionally burdened the right to travel. The Court applied strict scrutiny because the requirement penalized a fundamental right and found the State's asserted interests (preventing fraud, allocating limited resources) inadequate.

Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974), extended Shapiro to indigent medical care.

Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), revitalized the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a foundation for the right to travel and struck down California's two-tier welfare scheme.

For Medicaid specifically, federal law at 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(b) requires state plans to be in effect statewide and not impose duration-of-residence requirements as a condition of eligibility. So a state durational requirement would also conflict with federal Medicaid law.

Citations

• U.S. Const. amend. XIV (Equal Protection; Privileges or Immunities)
• 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(b) (Medicaid statewide-effect and duration requirements)
• Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
• Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974)
• Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/2010/ag_20101025.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE

    The following document is provided by the
   LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY

at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library
http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib

Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied
(searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions)
 2010-02
REGIONAL OFFICES:
84 HARLOW ST., 2ND FLOOR
BANGOR, MAINE 04401
TEL: (207) 941-3070
FAX: (207) 941,3075
]ANETT. MILLS
415 CONGRESS ST., STE. 301
ATTORNEY GENERAL
PORTLAND, MAI:-iE04101
TEL: (207) 822-0260
FAX: (207) 822-0259

                                         STATE OF MAINE                              14 ACCESS HIGHWW, STE. I

TEL: (207) 626-8800 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CARIBOU, M.\INE,04736

TTY: 1 -800-577 -6690 TEL: (207) 496-3792
6 STATE HOUSE STATION
FAX: (207) 496-3291
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0006

                                                   October 25, 2010

Brenda Harvey Commissioner
DHHS -Marquardt Building
11 State House Station
Augusta, Me 04333-0011

    Re: Residency Requirements

Dear Commissioner Harvey:

  You have asked about the constitutionality of proposals for a durational residency requirement for

Temporary Aid to Needy Families and Medicaid programs administered by the states.

    It is well settled law that people receiving assistance from a state may be required to provide proof

of residency but that no state may impose a minimum period during which an individual must reside in
state before becoming eligible for assistance.

   More than forty years ago the United States Supreme Court held that a one-year residency

requirement imposed by the District of Columbia and the states of Connecticut and Pennsylvania was
unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322,
22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).

    Thirty years later the Court reaffirmed its conclusion, by a vote of 7-2, in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S.

489, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999). In Saenz the Court ruled that even Congressional action
approving of such residency requirements could not remedy the constitutional violation. The Court
rejected the various justifications for such a requirement, including budget concerns, the potential for
abuse and a desire to discourage people from moving into the jurisdiction. These concerns, the Comi
concluded, do not outweigh the burden on a citizen's fundamental right to move from one state to another
which is protected by the Equal Protection and the Privileges and Immunities provisions of the United
States Constitution.

     These Supreme Court rulings are now embodied in the federal rule regarding health care

c1ssistance, 42 CFR sec.435.403, which states thc1t an agency "may not deny Medicaid eligibility because
an individual has not resided in the State for a specified period."
Brenda Harvey, Commissioner
October 25, 2010
Pae 2

    Of course a state may require proof that a person is a bona fide resident, and a state may require a

period of residency for other programs that do not provide the basic necessities of life, e.g., university
tuition, Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 445, 93 S.Ct. 2230, 37 L.Ed.2d 63 (1973), or hunting licenses,
Baldwin v. Fish and Game Comm 'n of lvfon{, 436 U.S. 371, 390-391, 98 S.Ct. 1852, 56 L.Ed.2d 63
(1978). For TANF, Medicaid/MaineCare and any other programs providing basic necessities, however, a
state may not discriminate against recent arrivals.

   I trust this letter adequately responds to the concerns raised about residency requirements.

   Thank you.


                                                 Very truly yours,




                                                 Attorney General
                                                 State of Maine

JTM/nms