|
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has rejected a challenge to the
six-month residency requirement in a state welfare program for immigrants.
The state program provides assistance to immigrants who are ineligible for
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) due to the 1996 federal welfare
law. While immigrants applying for the state-funded program must have lived
in Massachusetts for six months, there is no such residency requirement for
the immigrants (or U.S. citizens) who are eligible for federal TANF in Massachusetts.
Plaintiffs asserted that the state's imposition of a residency requirement
on some lawfully present immigrants, but not others, violates the equal protection
clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
However, the court refused to compare the treatment of immigrants under the
state program against their treatment under the federal program. Instead,
it examined only the restrictions in the separate state program. Concluding
that the discrimination in the state program is based on residency in Massachusetts,
rather than immigration status, the court applied a "rational basis" standard
of review. Had the court found that the state's discrimination was based on
immigration status, it would have applied the more stringent "strict scrutiny"
review.
The court found sufficient rational basis to support the six-month state
residency requirement. In rejecting the plaintiffs' claims, the court deemed
it significant that Massachusetts created a separate program intended only
to help immigrants who were rendered ineligible for federal welfare. In this
way, it distinguished New York's state-funded medical program, which had been
available to both citizens and immigrants before the state restricted coverage
for certain lawfully present immigrants. New York's highest court found that
such discrimination against lawfully present immigrants was unconstitutional.
(See Aliessa vs. Novello, 96 N.Y. 2d 418 (2001); "N.Y.
Law Restricting Immigrants' Eligibility for State Medical Aid Found Unconstitutional,"
Immigrants' Rights Update, June 29, 2001, p. 15.) In ruling against
the plaintiffs, the Massachusetts court also considered the consequences of
requiring legislatures to enact programs that cover either "all or none" of
the immigrants rendered ineligible due to the federal welfare law.
Doe v. Commissioner of Transitional Assistance,
__Mass.__ , 2002 Mass.
LEXIS 526 (Mass. Aug. 15, 2002).
|
