In the case of Shapiro, Welfare Commissioner of Connecticut v. Doe in 1969, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that states cannot impose a residency requirement for welfare benefits. The court held that such requirements violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as impeded on citizens' right to travel between states. This decision was based on two cases from Pennsylvania and Connecticut where individuals were denied welfare assistance because they had not lived in these respective states for at least one year prior to their application for aid. The ruling emphasized that basic needs like food and shelter are immediate necessities rather than luxuries which can be postponed by waiting periods or other administrative barriers imposed by state laws.

In the case of Shapiro v. Doe, the dissenting opinion argued that states should have the right to establish residency requirements for welfare recipients as a means of preserving their limited resources. The justices in opposition believed that these restrictions did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they were not arbitrary or irrational but rather served a legitimate state interest. They contended that such regulations helped prevent individuals from moving solely to receive higher benefits and thus protected each state's ability to provide adequate assistance for its own residents who are truly in need. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of “right to travel” arguing it does not mean one can demand equal treatment immediately upon arrival at new location without fulfilling reasonable residency requirements.