In the case of Damico et al. v. California et al., 1967, the plaintiffs challenged a California law that required welfare recipients to live in the state for at least one year before becoming eligible for aid. The Supreme Court ruled against this residency requirement, arguing it violated both equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against new residents who were equally as needy as long-term residents but denied assistance solely based on their recent arrival into the state. The court held that states could not impose such restrictions on public benefits because they created an unconstitutional barrier to interstate travel and migration.

In the dissenting opinion for DAMICO et al. v. CALIFORNIA et al., Justice Douglas argued that the California statute in question, which allowed police to arrest individuals who were unable to provide satisfactory accounts of themselves or their activities, was unconstitutional as it violated due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that this law essentially criminalized poverty by targeting those without a fixed address or regular employment - groups disproportionately represented by racial minorities and marginalized communities. Furthermore, he criticized the vagueness of terms like "satisfactory account," arguing they gave too much discretion to arresting officers and could easily lead to discriminatory enforcement practices based on personal biases rather than objective legal standards. Lastly, he expressed concern over how such laws might be used as tools of political repression against unpopular groups or individuals expressing dissenting views.