|
|
Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974)
Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County No. 72-847 Argued November 6, 1973 Decided February 26, 1974 415 U.S. 250
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
Syllabus
This is an appeal from a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of an Arizona statute requiring a year’s residence in a county as a condition to an indigent’s receiving nonemergency hospitalization or medical care at the county’s expense.
Held: The durational residence requirement, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, creates an "invidious classification" that impinges on the right of interstate travel by denying newcomers "basic necessities of life." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618. Pp. 253-270.
(a) Such a requirement, since it operates to penalize indigents for exercising their constitutional right of interstate migration, must be justified by a compelling state interest. Shapiro v. Thompson, supra; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330. Pp. 253-262.
(b) The State has not shown that the durational residence requirement is "legitimately defensible" in that it furthers a compelling state interest, and none of the purposes asserted as justification for the requirement -- fiscal savings, inhibiting migration of indigents generally, deterring indigents from taking up residence in the county solely to utilize the medical facilities, protection of longtime residents who have contributed to the community particularly by paying taxes, maintaining public support of the county hospital, administrative convenience in determining bona fide residence, prevention of fraud, and budget predictability -- satisfies the State’s burden of justification and insures that the State, in pursuing its asserted objectives, has chosen means that do not unnecessarily impinge on constitutionally protected interests. Pp. 262-269.
108 Ariz. 373, 498 P.2d 461, reversed and remanded.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN, J., concurred in the result. DOUGLAS, J., filed a separate opinion, post, p. 270. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 277.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974) in 415 U.S. 250 415 U.S. 251. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AL3PZWXUW4TVQI5.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974), in 415 U.S. 250, page 415 U.S. 251. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AL3PZWXUW4TVQI5.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974). cited in 1974, 415 U.S. 250, pp.415 U.S. 251. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AL3PZWXUW4TVQI5.
|