A statute of California making it a misdemeanor for anyone knowingly to bring or assist in bringing into the State a nonresident “indigent person” held invalid as an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
Where the element of unconscionability is present at the time a contract is made, the contract should not be enforced. The case is remanded to the lower court to determine whether the contract was unconscionable.
AFDC cannot be withheld because of the presence of a “substitute father” who visited a family on weekends. The issue before the US Supreme Court involved how the states could determine how to implement a federal program. The court used the term “co-operative federalism.”
Absent a compelling state interest, state laws that impose residency requirements to obtain welfare assistance violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Such laws also violate the constitutional right to travel by inhibiting migration by needy persons into the state.
The Due Process Clause provides the right to a full hearing before welfare benefits are terminated.
Neither the doctrine of primary jurisdiction nor that of exhaustion of administrative remedies precludes federal court jurisdiction of an action brought by welfare recipients seeking to determine whether a state law was inconsistent with the requirements of the federal Social Security Act.
The court determined that if the premises become uninhabitable, the tenant is freed from their obligation to pay rent. SCOTUS affirmed.
Landmark unanimous ruling that states are required under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants in criminal cases who are unable to afford their own.
An indigent criminal defendant cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. Specifically, the right to counsel applies if the defendant could actually be imprisoned, even for so-called petty offenses where no jury trial is required or the sentence would be less than six months.