Also known as: durational residence · durational residence requirement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A state requirement that a person reside within the jurisdiction for a specified period before becoming eligible for certain benefits or privileges. The requirement creates a classification between new and longer-term residents that burdens the fundamental right to interstate travel when applied to basic welfare or subsistence benefits.
Darius Dixon moved from State X to State Y for a new job and applied for general relief cash assistance two months later. State Y denied the application solely because Dixon had not yet lived in the state for a full year. The denial penalized Dixon for exercising the right to travel and triggered strict scrutiny that the state's fiscal interest could not satisfy.
Diego Duarte moved to Iowa and sought a divorce after six months of residence. Iowa refused to entertain the action because its statute required one year of residency before filing. The requirement imposed only a temporary barrier to using state courts rather than a permanent penalty on new residents.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dolores Diaz relocated to California and applied for AFDC benefits. The state limited her payments for the first year to the lower amount she would have received in her prior state. The durational classification treated new residents as second-class for subsistence aid and violated equal protection.
Derek Douglas arrived in Alaska seeking pipeline work. The state required one year of residency before he could qualify for the local-hire preference. The durational rule restricted access to employment opportunities and was subject to privileges-and-immunities scrutiny.
Deborah Dunn registered to vote three months after moving to Tennessee. The state required one year of residency before allowing her to cast a ballot. The waiting period burdened the right to travel and equal protection without a compelling justification.
Strict scrutiny applies when the requirement penalizes the fundamental right to travel by denying new residents basic welfare or subsistence benefits that longer-term residents receive immediately. Fiscal conservation and deterring indigent migration are not compelling interests that can justify the classification.
Supporting sources
No. Requirements for divorce jurisdiction or certain specialized benefits may survive if they do not penalize interstate movement or create invidious distinctions among residents. The key distinction is whether the rule withholds essential welfare from new residents solely because they recently exercised the right to travel.
Supporting sources
Protecting the state treasury and discouraging entry by those who might need assistance are not constitutionally permissible objectives. These purposes directly target the migration of indigent persons and cannot survive the strict scrutiny triggered by a burden on the right to travel.
Supporting sources
…budget than the impact of new residents seeking to attend a state university. In the case of the welfare recipients, a modest durational residence requirement to allow for the completion of an annual legislative budget cycle gives the State time to decide how to finance the increased obligations. The Court tries to distinguish education and…