In the case of Montgomery, Director, California Department of Social Welfare v. Burns et al., 1968, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over welfare benefits for children residing in California but whose parents were not residents or citizens of the state. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny these children welfare benefits based on their parent's residency status under Section 11205(a) and (b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. The decision emphasized that such denial violated both equal protection clause and due process clause as per Fourteenth Amendment since all persons within a state’s jurisdiction are entitled to equal protection by its laws regardless of citizenship or residence. Furthermore, this ruling underscored that states cannot discriminate against non-residents when providing public assistance programs funded partially by federal government.

In the dissenting opinion for Montgomery v. Burns, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to strike down California's residency requirement for welfare benefits was a misinterpretation of the Constitution. He contended that states have a legitimate interest in ensuring their resources are used efficiently and effectively, which can include imposing reasonable residency requirements on public assistance programs. Furthermore, he asserted that such requirements do not violate equal protection or due process clauses as they apply equally to all residents and provide an objective standard by which eligibility is determined. In his view, it is not within the Court’s purview to dictate how states should allocate their limited resources; rather this responsibility lies with state legislatures who are better equipped to make these decisions based on local needs and circumstances.