The U.S. Supreme Court case Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez et al., 1985, dealt with the constitutionality of a New York statute that gave preference in civil service employment to veterans who were residents of the state at the time they entered military service. The plaintiffs, two Puerto Rican-born Vietnam War veterans who moved to New York after their military service, argued that this residency requirement violated their constitutional right to travel and equal protection under law as it discriminated against them for not being residents when they enlisted. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Soto-Lopez and struck down the statute as unconstitutional. The majority opinion held that while states have legitimate interests in rewarding citizens for past contributions or encouraging future public services such as military enlistment, these interests did not justify penalizing newcomers by denying them benefits available to longer-term residents.

In the dissenting opinion for Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, Justice White argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings regarding state residency requirements. He contended that states should have more leeway in determining their own policies and benefits, especially when it comes to veterans' bonuses which are designed as a reward for residents who served in the military. The justice believed that these types of rewards do not necessarily need to be extended to individuals who move into the state after serving elsewhere. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on how much burden this policy placed on interstate travel rights; he did not see it as an unconstitutional infringement but rather a reasonable condition set by individual states.