zobel
williams
argued
october
decided
june
alaska
amended
constitution
establish
permanent
fund
state
must
deposit
least
mineral
income
year
state
legislature
enacted
dividend
program
distribute
annually
portion
fund
earnings
directly
state
adult
residents
plan
adult
resident
receives
one
dividend
unit
year
residency
subsequent
first
year
alaska
statehood
appellants
residents
alaska
since
brought
action
alaska
state
challenging
statutory
dividend
distribution
plan
violative
inter
alia
right
equal
protection
guarantees
trial
granted
summary
judgment
appellants
favor
alaska
reversed
upheld
statute
held
alaska
dividend
distribution
plan
violates
guarantees
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
pp
rather
imposing
threshold
waiting
period
entitlement
dividend
benefits
establishing
test
bona
fides
state
residence
dividend
statute
creates
fixed
permanent
distinctions
number
classes
concededly
bona
fide
residents
based
long
lived
state
sosna
iowa
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
dunn
blumstein
shapiro
thompson
distinguished
state
distributes
benefits
unequally
distinctions
makes
subject
scrutiny
equal
protection
clause
generally
law
survive
scrutiny
distinctions
rationally
legitimate
state
purpose
pp
alaska
shown
valid
state
interests
rationally
served
distinctions
makes
citizens
established
residence
become
residents
since
neither
state
claimed
interest
creating
financial
incentive
individuals
establish
maintain
residence
alaska
claimed
interest
assuring
prudent
management
permanent
fund
rationally
related
distinctions
state
interest
rewarding
citizens
past
contributions
legitimate
state
purpose
alaska
reasoning
open
door
state
apportionment
rights
benefits
services
according
length
residency
permit
divide
citizens
expanding
numbers
permanent
classes
result
clearly
impermissible
pp
burger
delivered
opinion
brennan
white
marshall
blackmun
powell
stevens
joined
brennan
filed
concurring
opinion
marshall
blackmun
powell
joined
post
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
mark
sandberg
argued
cause
appellants
briefs
jonathon
chase
avrum
gross
argued
cause
appellees
brief
wilson
condon
attorney
general
alaska
susan
burke
assistant
attorney
general
chief
justice
burger
delivered
opinion
question
presented
appeal
whether
statutory
scheme
state
distributes
income
derived
natural
resources
adult
citizens
state
varying
amounts
based
length
citizen
residence
violates
equal
protection
rights
newer
state
citizens
alaska
sustained
constitutionality
statute
stayed
distribution
dividend
funds
noted
probable
jurisdiction
reverse
discovery
large
oil
reserves
land
prudhoe
bay
area
alaska
resulted
windfall
state
state
total
budget
million
oil
revenues
began
flow
state
coffers
received
billion
petroleum
revenues
fiscal
year
income
continue
likely
grow
years
future
recognizing
mineral
reserves
although
large
finite
resulting
income
continue
perpetuity
state
took
steps
assure
current
good
fortune
bring
benefits
accomplish
alaska
adopted
constitutional
amendment
establishing
permanent
fund
state
must
deposit
least
mineral
income
year
alaska
art
ix
amendment
prohibits
legislature
appropriating
principal
fund
permits
use
fund
earnings
general
governmental
purposes
legislature
enacted
dividend
program
distribute
annually
portion
fund
earnings
directly
state
adult
residents
plan
citizen
years
age
older
receives
one
dividend
unit
year
residency
subsequent
first
year
statehood
statute
fixed
value
dividend
unit
fiscal
year
resident
thus
receive
one
unit
resident
alaska
since
became
state
receive
units
value
dividend
unit
vary
year
depending
income
permanent
fund
amount
income
state
allocates
purposes
state
estimates
fiscal
year
dividend
nearly
four
times
large
appellants
residents
alaska
since
brought
suit
challenging
dividend
distribution
plan
violative
right
equal
protection
guarantees
constitutional
right
migrate
alaska
establish
residency
thereafter
enjoy
full
rights
alaska
citizenship
terms
citizens
state
superior
alaska
third
judicial
district
granted
summary
judgment
appellants
favor
holding
plan
violated
rights
interstate
travel
equal
protection
divided
alaska
reversed
upheld
statute
ii
alaska
dividend
distribution
law
quite
unlike
durational
residency
requirements
examined
sosna
iowa
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
dunn
blumstein
shapiro
thompson
cases
involved
laws
required
new
residents
reside
state
fixed
minimum
period
eligible
certain
benefits
available
equal
basis
residents
asserted
purpose
durational
residency
requirements
assure
persons
established
bona
fide
residence
received
rights
benefits
provided
residents
alaska
statute
impose
threshold
waiting
period
seeking
dividend
benefits
persons
less
full
year
residency
entitled
share
distribution
alaska
stat
ann
supp
statute
purport
establish
test
bona
fides
state
residence
instead
dividend
statute
creates
fixed
permanent
distinctions
number
perpetual
classes
concededly
bona
fide
residents
based
long
state
appellants
established
residence
alaska
two
years
dividend
law
passed
distinction
complain
one
state
makes
arrived
alaska
enactment
dividend
distribution
law
residents
prior
enactment
appellants
instead
challenge
distinctions
made
within
class
persons
residents
dividend
scheme
enacted
distinctions
appellants
attack
include
preference
given
persons
residents
alaska
became
state
arrived
since
well
distinctions
made
bona
fide
residents
settled
alaska
different
times
period
state
distributes
benefits
unequally
distinctions
makes
subject
scrutiny
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
generally
law
survive
scrutiny
distinction
makes
rationally
furthers
legitimate
state
purpose
particularly
invidious
distinctions
subject
rigorous
scrutiny
appellants
claim
distinctions
made
alaska
law
subjected
higher
level
scrutiny
applied
durational
residency
requirements
shapiro
thompson
supra
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
supra
state
hand
asserts
law
need
meet
minimum
rationality
test
event
statutory
scheme
pass
even
minimal
test
proposed
state
need
decide
whether
enhanced
scrutiny
called
state
advanced
alaska
accepted
three
purposes
justifying
distinctions
made
dividend
program
creation
financial
incentive
individuals
establish
maintain
residence
alaska
encouragement
prudent
management
permanent
fund
apportionment
benefits
recognition
undefined
contributions
various
kinds
tangible
intangible
residents
made
years
residency
alaska
apparently
realized
first
two
state
objective
creating
financial
incentive
individuals
establish
maintain
alaska
residence
assuring
prudent
management
permanent
fund
state
natural
mineral
resources
rationally
related
distinctions
alaska
seeks
make
newer
residents
state
since
assuming
arguendo
granting
increased
dividend
benefits
year
continued
alaska
residence
might
give
residents
incentive
stay
state
order
reap
increased
dividend
benefits
future
state
interest
way
served
granting
greater
dividends
persons
residency
years
prior
enactment
state
purpose
furthering
prudent
management
permanent
fund
state
resources
support
retrospective
application
plan
date
statehood
score
state
contention
straightforward
population
increases
individual
share
income
stream
diluted
income
must
divided
equally
among
increasingly
large
numbers
people
residents
believed
twenty
years
required
share
permanent
fund
income
per
capita
basis
large
population
alaska
doubt
temptation
great
urge
legislature
provide
immediately
highest
possible
percentage
return
investments
permanent
fund
principal
require
investments
riskier
ventures
last
state
objectives
reward
citizens
past
contributions
alone
relied
upon
alaska
support
retrospective
application
law
however
objective
legitimate
state
purpose
similar
past
contributions
argument
made
rejected
shapiro
thompson
appellants
argue
challenged
classification
may
sustained
attempt
distinguish
new
old
residents
basis
contributions
made
community
payment
taxes
appellants
reasoning
permit
state
apportion
benefits
services
according
past
tax
intangible
contributions
citizens
equal
protection
clause
prohibits
apportionment
state
services
emphasis
added
make
amount
cash
dividend
depend
length
residence
preclude
varying
university
tuition
sliding
scale
based
years
residence
even
limiting
access
finite
public
facilities
eligibility
student
loans
civil
service
jobs
government
contracts
length
domicile
impose
different
taxes
based
length
residence
alaska
reasoning
open
door
state
apportionment
rights
benefits
services
according
length
residency
permit
divide
citizens
expanding
numbers
permanent
classes
result
clearly
impermissible
need
consider
whether
state
enact
dividend
program
prospectively
invalidation
portion
statute
necessarily
render
whole
invalid
unless
evident
legislature
enacted
legislation
without
invalid
portion
buckley
valeo
jackson
champlin
refining
corporation
oklahoma
need
speculate
intent
alaska
legislature
legislation
expressly
provides
invalidation
portion
statute
renders
whole
invalid
sec
provision
enacted
sec
act
included
dividend
distribution
plan
entirety
held
invalid
final
judgment
decision
order
competent
jurisdiction
provision
nonseverable
provisions
enacted
sec
act
invalid
force
effect
alaska
sess
laws
ch
iii
apparent
justification
retrospective
aspect
program
favoring
established
residents
new
residents
constitutionally
unacceptable
vlandis
kline
supra
view
alaska
shown
valid
state
interests
rationally
served
distinction
makes
citizens
established
residence
become
residents
since
hold
alaska
dividend
distribution
plan
violates
guarantees
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
accordingly
judgment
alaska
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
reversed
remanded
footnotes
infusion
permanent
fund
earnings
state
general
revenues
also
led
alaska
legislature
enact
statute
giving
residents
exemption
state
income
taxes
year
residence
operated
exempt
entirely
anyone
three
years
residency
alaska
vote
held
statute
violated
state
constitution
equal
protection
clause
williams
zobel
chief
justice
rabinowitz
justice
majority
cases
found
tax
exemption
statute
dividend
distribution
plan
perceived
penalty
imposed
person
chooses
exercise
right
move
alaska
durational
residency
cases
examined
state
laws
imposed
waiting
periods
access
divorce
courts
sosna
iowa
eligibility
free
nonemergency
medical
care
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
voting
rights
dunn
blumstein
welfare
assistance
shapiro
thompson
section
provides
year
individual
eligible
receive
payment
permanent
fund
dividends
entitled
section
least
years
age
state
resident
part
year
permanent
fund
dividend
paid
alaska
statute
simply
make
distinctions
alaskans
migrate
alaska
discriminate
recently
exercised
right
travel
statute
involved
shapiro
thompson
alaska
statute
also
discriminates
among
residents
even
residents
example
person
born
alaska
received
less
someone
born
state
course
native
alaskan
born
also
receive
less
person
moved
state
statute
involve
kind
discrimination
privileges
immunities
clause
art
iv
designed
prevent
clause
designed
insure
citizen
state
ventures
state
privileges
citizens
state
enjoy
toomer
witsell
clause
thus
applicable
case
alaska
courts
considered
whether
dividend
distribution
law
violated
appellants
constitutional
right
travel
right
travel
move
one
state
another
long
accepted
yet
nature
source
right
remained
obscure
see
jones
helms
nn
shapiro
thompson
supra
guest
see
also
chafee
three
human
rights
constitution
pp
addition
protecting
persons
erection
actual
barriers
interstate
movement
right
travel
applied
residency
requirements
protects
new
residents
state
disadvantaged
recent
migration
otherwise
treated
differently
longer
term
residents
reality
right
travel
analysis
refers
little
particular
application
equal
protection
analysis
right
travel
cases
examined
equal
protection
terms
state
distinctions
newcomers
longer
term
residents
see
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
dunn
blumstein
shapiro
thompson
supra
case
also
involves
distinctions
residents
based
arrived
state
therefore
also
subject
equal
protection
analysis
purposes
enumerated
first
section
act
creating
dividend
distribution
plan
alaska
sess
laws
ch
purposes
act
provide
mechanism
equitable
distribution
people
alaska
least
portion
state
energy
wealth
derived
development
production
natural
resources
belonging
alaskans
encourage
persons
maintain
residence
alaska
reduce
population
turnover
state
encourage
increased
awareness
involvement
residents
state
management
expenditure
alaska
permanent
fund
art
ix
sec
state
constitution
response
argument
objectives
stabilizing
population
encouraging
prudent
management
permanent
fund
state
natural
resources
justify
application
dividend
program
years
alaska
maintained
retrospective
aspect
program
justified
objective
rewarding
state
citizens
past
contributions
see
also
dissenting
opinion
justice
dimond
fact
newcomers
seem
likely
become
dissatisfied
leave
state
residents
thus
seem
state
give
larger
rather
smaller
dividend
new
residents
wanted
discourage
emigration
separation
residents
classes
hardly
seems
likely
way
persuade
new
alaskans
state
welcomes
wants
stay
course
state
objective
reducing
population
turnover
interpreted
attempt
inhibit
migration
state
without
encountering
insurmountable
constitutional
difficulties
see
shapiro
thompson
even
objective
rewarding
past
contributions
valid
ironic
apply
rationale
representative
randolph
noted
debate
state
legislature
dividend
statute
pipeline
entity
allowed
us
latitude
things
considering
today
throughout
session
without
newcomers
built
pipeline
without
skill
without
ability
without
money
pipeline
get
little
bit
tired
got
hunch
awful
lot
people
five
six
seven
ten
years
whatever
knock
newcomers
get
little
bit
tired
chastized
penalized
discriminated
born
years
apportionment
thus
prohibited
involves
fundamental
rights
services
deemed
involve
basic
necessities
life
see
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
power
produce
nothing
discord
mutual
irritation
clearly
possess
passenger
cases
taney
dissenting
starns
malkerson
supp
summarily
aff
read
contrary
decision
first
summary
affirmance
read
adoption
reasoning
supporting
judgment
review
fusari
steinberg
concurring
opinion
see
also
colorado
springs
amusements
rizzo
brennan
dissenting
edelman
jordan
moreover
pointed
vlandis
kline
considered
minnesota
residency
requirement
examined
starns
test
bona
fide
residence
return
prior
contributions
commonweal
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
justice
powell
join
concurring
join
opinion
agree
conclusion
retrospective
aspects
alaska
law
rationally
related
legitimate
state
purpose
write
separately
emphasize
pervasive
discrimination
embodied
alaska
distribution
scheme
gives
rise
constitutional
concerns
somewhat
larger
proportions
may
evident
cursory
reading
opinion
view
concerns
might
well
preclude
even
prospective
operation
alaska
scheme
agree
justice
fundamental
defects
alaska
law
part
reflected
come
called
right
travel
right
precisely
federal
interest
free
interstate
migration
clearly
though
indirectly
affected
alaska
law
threat
free
interstate
migration
provides
independent
rationale
holding
law
unconstitutional
outset
however
note
frequent
attempts
assign
right
travel
textual
source
constitution
seem
proved
inconclusive
unnecessary
justice
plausibly
argues
post
right
predates
constitution
carried
forward
privileges
immunities
clause
art
iv
equally
plausible
think
argument
right
resides
commerce
clause
see
edwards
california
privileges
immunities
clause
fourteenth
amendment
see
douglas
concurring
event
light
unquestioned
historic
recognition
principle
free
interstate
migration
role
development
nation
need
feel
impelled
ascribe
source
right
travel
interstate
particular
constitutional
provision
shapiro
thompson
suffices
constitutional
right
travel
one
state
another
occupies
position
fundamental
concept
federal
union
right
firmly
established
repeatedly
recognized
right
funds
explicit
mention
constitution
reason
suggested
right
elementary
conceived
beginning
necessary
concomitant
stronger
union
constitution
created
event
freedom
travel
throughout
long
recognized
basic
right
constitution
quoting
guest
state
clearly
may
undertake
enhance
advantages
industry
economy
resources
make
desirable
place
live
addition
state
may
make
residence
within
boundaries
attractive
offering
direct
benefits
citizens
form
public
services
lower
taxes
offer
direct
distributions
munificence
means
one
state
may
attract
citizens
join
numbers
citizenry
healthy
form
rivalry
inheres
idea
maintaining
independent
sovereigns
within
larger
framework
fully
indeed
necessarily
consistent
framers
idea
joining
independent
sovereigns
single
nation
state
compound
offer
direct
benefits
inventive
manner
exemplified
alaska
distribution
scheme
state
free
reward
citizens
incrementally
years
residence
citizen
leaving
one
state
thereby
forfeit
accrued
seniority
begin
building
seniority
new
state
residence
mobility
essential
economic
progress
nation
commonly
accepted
fundamental
aspect
social
order
long
survive
ii
today
reaffirms
important
principle
least
respect
discrimination
state
desire
reward
citizens
past
contributions
clearly
legitimate
state
purpose
ante
think
odd
post
disclaims
reliance
right
travel
source
limitation
state
power
view
acknowledged
illegitimacy
state
purpose
different
heritage
reflects
structure
federal
union
idea
constitutionally
protected
equality
see
shapiro
thompson
supra
equal
protection
clause
prohibits
apportionment
state
services
vlandis
kline
constitution
places
recently
naturalized
immigrant
foreign
land
equal
footing
citizens
state
able
trace
lineage
back
many
generations
within
state
borders
native
resident
state
much
citizen
native
resident
alaska
plan
discriminates
recently
naturalized
citizen
favor
alaska
citizen
longer
duration
discriminates
native
resident
favor
residents
longer
duration
alaska
plan
limited
discriminations
purport
apply
migrants
sister
interstate
travel
noticeably
burdened
yet
discriminations
surely
constitutionally
suspect
fourteenth
amendment
guarantees
equal
protection
law
anyone
may
within
territorial
jurisdiction
state
amendment
suggest
terms
equal
treatment
might
denied
person
depending
upon
long
person
within
jurisdiction
state
fourteenth
amendment
however
expressly
recognize
one
elementary
basis
distinguishing
persons
may
within
state
jurisdiction
particular
time
setting
forth
requirements
state
citizenship
significant
citizenship
clause
fourteenth
amendment
expressly
equates
citizenship
simple
residence
clause
provide
allow
degrees
citizenship
based
length
residence
equal
protection
clause
tolerate
distinctions
short
much
right
travel
equality
citizenship
essence
republic
notes
may
divide
citizens
expanding
numbers
permanent
classes
ante
course
elementary
constitution
bar
making
reasoned
distinctions
citizens
insofar
distinctions
rationally
related
legitimate
ends
state
present
constitutional
difficulty
equal
protection
jurisprudence
attests
never
suggested
duration
residence
vel
non
provides
valid
justification
discrimination
contrary
discrimination
basis
residence
must
supported
valid
state
interest
independent
discrimination
sure
allegiance
attachment
may
rationally
measured
length
residence
length
residence
may
example
used
test
bona
fides
citizenship
allegiance
attachment
may
bear
rational
relationship
limited
number
legitimate
state
purposes
cf
chimento
stark
supp
nh
summarily
aff
citizenship
requirement
run
governor
art
cl
cl
art
ii
cl
instances
length
residence
provide
legitimate
basis
distinguishing
one
citizen
another
rare
permissible
discriminations
persons
must
bear
rational
relationship
relevant
characteristics
impression
unavoidable
process
legislative
classification
ideal
equal
protection
requires
attention
individual
merit
individual
need
almost
instances
business
state
past
present
remedy
continuing
injustices
fill
current
needs
build
present
order
better
future
past
actions
individuals
may
relevant
assessing
present
needs
past
actions
may
also
relevant
predicting
current
ability
future
performance
addition
limited
extent
recognition
reward
past
public
service
independent
utility
state
recognition
may
encourage
people
engage
comparably
meritorious
service
even
idea
rewarding
past
public
service
offers
scarce
support
past
contribution
justification
classifications
since
length
residence
tenuous
relation
actual
service
individuals
state
thus
rationale
proves
much
little
provide
rational
predicate
discrimination
basis
length
residence
also
proves
far
much
permit
state
apportion
benefits
services
according
past
contributions
citizens
shapiro
thompson
effect
rationale
potential
application
relationship
residence
contribution
state
vague
insupportable
amounts
little
restatement
criterion
discrimination
purports
justify
duration
residence
minimal
utility
measure
things
fact
constitutionally
relevant
resort
duration
residence
basis
distribution
state
largesse
closely
track
constitutionally
untenable
position
longer
one
residence
worthier
one
state
favor
view
difficult
escape
recognition
underlying
scheme
classification
basis
duration
residence
shall
almost
invariably
find
unstated
premise
citizens
equal
others
rejected
premise
believe
implicitly
rejected
forms
discrimination
based
upon
length
residence
adopted
equal
protection
clause
notably
stake
case
clearly
must
taken
account
determining
constitutionality
legislative
scheme
national
interest
fluid
system
interstate
movement
may
national
interests
always
easily
translated
individual
rights
right
travel
involved
cases
leave
doubt
trigger
intensified
equal
protection
scrutiny
see
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
dunn
blumstein
shapiro
thompson
notes
right
travel
implicated
actual
barriers
interstate
movement
also
state
distinctions
newcomers
longer
term
residents
ante
citizen
volition
become
citizen
state
union
bona
fide
residence
therein
rights
citizens
state
cases
wall
see
bradley
dissenting
citizen
perfect
constitutional
right
go
reside
state
chooses
claim
citizenship
therein
equality
rights
every
citizen
american
aversion
aristocracy
developed
long
fourteenth
amendment
course
reflected
elsewhere
constitution
see
art
cl
title
nobility
shall
granted
see
also
virginia
declaration
rights
rutland
birth
bill
rights
app
man
set
men
entitled
exclusive
separate
emoluments
privileges
community
consideration
public
services
justice
concurring
judgment
strikes
alaska
distribution
scheme
purporting
rely
solely
upon
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
phrase
right
travel
appears
fleetingly
analysis
dismissed
observation
right
travel
analysis
refers
little
particular
application
equal
protection
analysis
ante
reluctance
rely
explicitly
right
travel
odd
holding
depends
assumption
alaska
desire
reward
citizens
past
contributions
legitimate
state
purpose
ante
nothing
equal
protection
clause
however
declares
objective
illegitimate
instead
full
reading
shapiro
thompson
vlandis
kline
reveals
rejected
objective
implementation
abridge
interest
interstate
travel
migration
respectfully
suggest
therefore
misdirects
criticism
labels
alaska
objective
illegitimate
desire
compensate
citizens
prior
contributions
neither
inherently
invidious
irrational
circumstances
objective
may
wholly
reasonable
even
generalized
desire
reward
citizens
past
endurance
particularly
state
years
hardship
recently
produced
prosperity
innately
improper
difficulty
plans
enacted
objective
necessarily
treat
new
residents
state
less
favorably
longer
term
residents
past
contributions
reward
inequality
repeatedly
recognized
conflicts
constitutional
purpose
maintaining
union
rather
mere
league
see
paul
virginia
wall
task
therefore
articulate
constitutional
principle
explaining
textual
sources
test
strength
alaska
objective
constitutional
imperative
choosing
instead
declare
alaska
purpose
wholly
illegitimate
establishes
uncertain
jurisprudence
makes
alaska
purpose
illegitimate
purpose
illegitimate
circumstances
state
interests
wholly
illegitimate
illegitimate
purpose
survive
review
becomes
important
compelling
ambiguities
analysis
prompt
develop
approach
alaska
scheme
alaska
distribution
plan
distinguishes
residents
recent
arrivals
stripped
essentials
plan
denies
settling
state
privileges
afforded
longer
term
residents
privileges
immunities
clause
art
iv
guarantees
citizens
state
privileges
immunities
citizens
several
addresses
type
discrimination
accordingly
measure
alaska
scheme
principles
implementing
privileges
immunities
clause
addition
resolving
particular
problems
raised
alaska
scheme
analysis
supplies
needed
foundation
many
right
travel
claims
discussed
prior
opinions
opinions
teach
art
iv
privileges
immunities
clause
designed
insure
citizen
state
ventures
state
privileges
citizens
state
enjoy
toomer
witsell
clause
protects
nonresident
enters
state
work
hicklin
orbeck
hunt
commercial
game
toomer
supra
procure
medical
services
doe
bolton
fortiori
privileges
immunities
clause
protect
citizen
state
ventures
state
settle
establish
home
case
alaska
forces
nonresidents
settling
state
accept
status
inferior
oldtimers
first
year
operation
distribution
scheme
given
alaskan
lived
state
since
statehood
resident
years
received
resident
received
effect
therefore
state
told
citizens
status
depends
upon
date
established
residence
migrated
state
share
bounty
basis
surely
scheme
imposes
one
disabilities
alienage
prohibited
art
iv
privileges
immunities
clause
see
paul
virginia
supra
argued
alaska
scheme
trigger
privileges
immunities
clause
discriminates
among
classes
residents
rather
residents
nonresidents
argument
however
misinterprets
force
alaska
distribution
system
alaska
scheme
classifies
citizens
basis
former
residential
status
imposing
relative
burden
migrated
state
residents
arrived
alaska
date
less
valuable
citizenship
right
oldtimers
preceded
citizens
arrive
state
tomorrow
receive
even
smaller
claim
alaska
resources
fact
discrimination
unfolds
nonresident
establishes
residency
insulate
alaska
scheme
scrutiny
privileges
immunities
clause
group
citizens
migrated
alaska
past
chooses
move
future
lives
state
less
favorable
terms
arrived
earlier
circumstance
disfavored
citizens
already
live
alaska
negate
fact
citizen
state
ventures
alaska
establish
home
labors
continuous
disability
privileges
immunities
clause
applies
alaska
distribution
system
prior
opinions
describe
proper
standard
review
baldwin
montana
fish
game
held
must
treat
residents
nonresidents
without
unnecessary
distinctions
nonresident
seeks
engage
essential
activity
exercise
basic
right
hand
nonresident
engages
conduct
fundamental
bea
upon
vitality
nation
single
entity
privileges
immunities
clause
affords
protection
ascertains
discrimination
burdens
essential
activity
test
constitutionality
discrimination
test
first
must
something
indicate
constitute
peculiar
source
evil
statute
aimed
hicklin
orbeck
supra
quoting
toomer
witsell
supra
second
must
find
substantial
relationship
evil
discrimination
practiced
noncitizens
certainly
right
infringed
case
fundamental
alaska
statute
burdens
nonresidents
choose
settle
state
difficult
imagine
right
essential
nation
whole
right
establish
residence
new
state
federal
system
permits
experiment
different
social
economic
programs
new
state
ice
liebmann
brandeis
dissenting
allows
individual
settle
state
offering
programs
best
tailored
tastes
alaska
encumbrance
right
nonresidents
settle
state
therefore
must
satisfy
dual
standard
identified
hicklin
alaska
shown
new
residents
peculiar
source
evil
addressed
disbursement
scheme
state
argue
recent
arrivals
constitute
particular
source
population
turnover
problem
indeed
state
urges
special
interest
persuading
young
adults
grown
maturity
state
remain
brief
appellees
evidence
new
residents
rather
old
foolishly
deplete
state
mineral
financial
resources
finally
although
alaska
argues
scheme
compensates
residents
prior
tangible
intangible
contributions
state
nonresidents
hardly
peculiar
source
evil
partaking
current
largesse
without
made
prior
contributions
multitude
native
alaskans
including
children
paupers
may
failed
contribute
state
past
yet
state
dock
paupers
prior
failures
contribute
awards
every
person
age
dividends
equal
number
years
person
lived
state
even
new
residents
peculiar
source
evils
alaska
chosen
cure
bears
substantial
relationship
malady
dissenting
judges
observed
alaska
scheme
gives
largest
dividends
residents
lived
longest
state
dividends
awarded
new
residents
may
small
encourage
stay
alaska
size
dividends
appears
give
new
residents
weak
interest
prudent
management
state
resources
reward
prior
contributions
finally
alaska
scheme
quite
phrase
substantial
relationship
require
mathematical
precision
demands
least
recognition
fact
persons
migrated
alaska
may
contributed
significantly
state
arrival
natives
reasons
conclude
alaska
disbursement
scheme
violates
art
iv
privileges
immunities
clause
thus
reach
destination
along
course
precisely
identifies
evils
challenged
statute
ii
analysis
outlined
might
apply
many
cases
litigant
asserts
right
travel
migrate
interstate
historians
come
surprise
article
iv
privileges
immunities
clause
enjoyed
long
association
rights
travel
migrate
interstate
clause
derives
art
iv
articles
confederation
latter
expressly
recognized
right
free
ingress
regress
state
addition
guaranteeing
free
inhabitants
privileges
immunities
free
citizens
several
framers
constitution
omitted
reference
free
ingress
regress
retained
general
guaranty
privileges
immunities
charles
pinckney
drafted
current
version
art
iv
told
convention
article
formed
exactly
upon
principles
article
present
confederation
farrand
records
federal
convention
commentators
therefore
assumed
framers
omitted
express
guaranty
merely
redundant
wished
excise
right
constitution
early
opinions
justices
also
traced
right
travel
migrate
interstate
art
iv
privileges
immunities
clause
corfield
coryell
cas
cc
ed
example
justice
washington
explained
clause
protects
right
citizen
one
state
pass
reside
state
similarly
paul
virginia
found
one
undoubt
ed
effects
clause
give
citizens
state
right
free
ingress
egress
see
also
ward
maryland
wall
finally
wheeler
found
clause
fused
two
distinct
concepts
right
citizens
reside
peacefully
free
ingress
egress
right
exercise
privileges
history
therefore
supports
assessment
alaska
scheme
well
infringements
right
travel
privileges
immunities
clause
clause
may
address
every
conceivable
type
discrimination
previously
denominated
burden
interstate
travel
believe
however
application
privileges
immunities
clause
controversies
involving
right
travel
least
begin
task
reuniting
elusive
right
constitutional
principles
embodies
believe
alaska
distribution
scheme
violates
privileges
immunities
clause
art
iv
concur
judgment
insofar
reverses
judgment
alaska
state
example
might
choose
divide
largesse
among
persons
previously
contributed
time
volunteer
community
organizations
state
graded
dividends
according
number
years
devoted
prior
community
service
said
state
intended
reward
citizens
past
contributions
alternatively
state
might
enact
tax
credit
citizens
contribute
state
ecology
building
alternative
fuel
sources
establishing
recycling
plants
state
made
credit
retroactive
benefit
citizens
launched
improvements
became
fashionable
state
rewarding
past
contributions
opinion
dismiss
objectives
wholly
illegitimate
recognize
valid
goals
inquire
whether
implementation
infringed
constitutionally
protected
interest
conclusion
alaska
scheme
lacks
rational
basis
masks
puzzling
aspect
analysis
refusing
extend
legitimacy
alaska
objective
implies
program
designed
reward
prior
contributions
never
survive
equal
protection
scrutiny
example
programs
described
supra
survive
analysis
even
state
demonstrated
compelling
interest
rewarding
volunteer
activity
promoting
conservation
measures
opinion
although
purporting
apply
deferential
standard
review
actually
insures
governmental
program
depending
upon
past
contributions
rationale
violate
equal
protection
clause
clause
refers
citizens
found
terms
citizen
resident
essentially
interchangeable
purposes
analysis
cases
privileges
immunities
clause
hicklin
orbeck
quoting
austin
new
hampshire
opinion
therefore
refer
nonresidents
alaska
well
noncitizens
state
settled
privileges
immunities
clause
protect
corporations
see
paul
virginia
wall
word
citizens
suggests
clause
also
excludes
aliens
see
dictum
tribe
american
constitutional
law
prohibition
discrimination
aimed
aliens
corporations
must
derive
constitutional
provisions
see
generally
ward
maryland
wall
clause
plainly
unmistakably
secures
protects
right
citizen
one
state
pass
state
union
purpose
engaging
lawful
commerce
trade
business
without
molestation
acquire
personal
property
take
hold
real
estate
see
note
constitutional
analysis
state
bar
residency
requirements
interstate
privileges
immunities
clause
article
iv
harv
rev
labeling
contrary
argument
technical
points
ante
alaska
plan
differentiates
even
among
native
alaskans
tying
benefits
date
birth
scheme
merely
distributed
benefits
basis
age
without
reference
date
beneficiaries
established
residence
alaska
doubt
violate
privileges
immunities
clause
circumstances
texan
establishing
residence
alaska
acquire
privileges
citizenship
held
native
alaskan
scheme
treat
citizen
moves
state
differently
citizens
already
reside
explain
whether
find
scheme
objectionable
burden
imposed
nonresidents
relative
benefits
enjoyed
residents
immaterial
purposes
privileges
immunities
clause
nonresident
may
enjoy
benefit
new
state
lacked
completely
former
state
clause
addresses
differences
treatment
judge
quality
treatment
state
affords
citizens
noncitizens
see
also
baldwin
seelig
constitution
framed
upon
theory
peoples
several
must
sink
swim
together
long
run
prosperity
salvation
union
division
paul
virginia
indeed
without
provision
kind
removing
citizens
state
disabilities
alienage
giving
equality
privilege
citizens
republic
constituted
little
league
constituted
union
exists
edwards
california
constitution
prohibits
attempts
part
single
state
isolate
difficulties
common
restraining
transportation
persons
property
across
borders
durational
residency
requirement
example
treats
nonresidents
exercised
right
settle
state
differently
longer
term
residents
say
however
requirements
fail
scrutiny
privileges
immunities
clause
durational
residency
requirement
upheld
sosna
iowa
one
year
obtain
divorce
example
survived
analysis
outlined
sosna
state
showed
nonresidents
peculiar
source
evil
addressed
durational
residency
requirement
persons
misrepresent
attachment
iowa
obtain
divorces
susceptible
collateral
attack
iowa
adopted
reasonable
response
problem
requiring
nonresidents
demonstrate
bona
fide
residency
one
year
obtaining
divorce
confident
analysis
developed
hicklin
orbeck
adequately
identify
legitimate
durational
residency
requirements
even
adoption
articles
colonies
explicitly
protected
freedom
movement
rhode
island
charter
gave
members
colony
right
passe
repasse
freedome
rest
english
collonies
upon
lawful
civill
occasions
chafee
three
human
rights
constitution
massachusetts
body
liberties
provided
every
man
within
jurisdiction
shall
free
libertie
standing
civil
power
remove
himselfe
familie
pleasure
provided
legall
impediment
contrarie
massachusetts
showed
liberality
foreigners
entering
colony
people
nations
professing
true
christian
religion
shall
flee
us
tiranny
oppression
persecutors
famyne
warres
like
necessary
compulsarie
cause
shall
entertayned
succoured
among
us
according
power
prudence
god
shall
give
us
ibid
see
note
right
travel
exclusionary
zoning
hastings
comment
right
travel
search
constitutional
source
neb
rev
comment
strict
scrutiny
right
travel
ucla
rev
see
also
austin
new
hampshire
footnotes
omitted
article
iv
articles
confederation
carried
comity
article
constitution
briefer
form
change
substance
intent
unless
strengthen
force
clause
fashioning
single
nation
wheeler
text
article
iv
constitution
makes
manifest
drawn
reference
corresponding
clause
articles
confederation
intended
perpetuate
limitations
view
conclusively
settled
leave
room
controversy
justice
rehnquist
dissenting
alaska
dividend
distribution
scheme
represents
one
state
effort
apportion
unique
economic
benefits
among
citizens
although
wealth
received
oil
deposits
prudhoe
bay
may
quite
unlike
economic
resources
enjoyed
alaska
distribution
wealth
substance
different
state
allocation
economic
benefits
distribution
scheme
nature
economic
regulation
loss
see
rationality
behind
invalidation
denial
equal
protection
long
held
state
economic
regulations
presumptively
valid
violate
fourteenth
amendment
rarest
circumstances
local
economic
regulation
challenged
solely
violating
equal
protection
clause
consistently
defers
legislative
determinations
desirability
particular
statutory
discriminations
see
lehnhausen
lake
shore
auto
parts
unless
classification
trammels
fundamental
personal
rights
drawn
upon
inherently
suspect
distinctions
race
religion
alienage
decisions
presume
constitutionality
statutory
discriminations
require
classification
challenged
rationally
related
legitimate
state
interest
accorded
wide
latitude
regulation
local
economies
police
powers
rational
distinctions
may
made
substantially
less
mathematical
exactitude
new
orleans
dukes
despite
highly
deferential
approach
invariably
taken
toward
state
economic
regulations
today
finds
retroactive
aspect
alaska
distribution
scheme
violative
fourteenth
amendment
concludes
state
first
two
justifications
rationally
related
retroactive
portion
distribution
scheme
third
justification
reward
citizens
past
contributions
legitimate
state
objective
illegitimacy
state
recognizing
past
contributions
citizens
established
certain
cases
considering
infringement
right
travel
majority
rightly
declines
apply
strict
scrutiny
analysis
cases
see
ante
distribution
scheme
issue
case
impedes
person
right
travel
settle
alaska
anything
prospect
receiving
annual
cash
dividends
encourage
immigration
alaska
state
third
justification
therefore
dismissed
simply
quoting
language
legitimacy
cases
relevance
question
us
understood
case
clearly
passes
equal
protection
muster
doubt
state
legislature
acted
rationally
concluded
dividends
retroactive
year
statehood
recognize
contributions
various
kinds
tangible
intangible
residents
made
years
state
residency
alaska
doubt
alaska
perhaps
state
union
good
reason
recognizing
contributions
distribution
scheme
thus
rationally
based
dissent
invalidation
guise
equal
protection
analysis
striking
alaskan
scheme
seems
momentarily
forgotten
principle
fourteenth
amendment
gives
federal
courts
power
impose
upon
views
constitutes
wise
economic
social
policy
dandridge
williams
relies
upon
shapiro
thompson
vlandis
kline
holding
alaska
may
justify
dividend
distribution
scheme
desire
reward
citizens
past
contributions
shapiro
however
found
classification
issue
touche
fundamental
right
interstate
movement
therefore
justified
promoted
compelling
state
interest
emphasis
original
similarly
vlandis
concerned
right
move
establish
residency
connecticut
noted
dicta
rewarding
citizens
past
contributions
impermissible
state
objective
see
although
expressed
disagreement
holding
even
cases
see
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
rehnquist
dissenting
vlandis
kline
supra
need
rely
upon
dissenting
position
majority
analyze
case
compare
ante
memorial
hospital
maricopa
county
supra
shapiro
thompson
supra
alaska
noted
lived
alaska
year
statehood
borne
unusual
expenses
hardships
government
one
embodied
alaska
constitution
complete
range
governmental
services
expensive
state
limited
sources
taxation
alaska
boast
couple
pulp
mills
state
business
enterprises
small
catered
mostly
local
needs
addition
alaska
population
modest
hardly
amounted
city
continental
accordingly
revenues
small
yet
demands
great
state
government
provide
governmental
services
social
overhead
required
modern
american
society
instance
relatively
simple
build
roads
furnish
normal
police
protection
establish
customary
school
facilities
nothing
normal
alaska
remains
land
superlatives
subarctic
engineering
relatively
new
state
face
problem
permafrost
conditions
frequently
cause
roadtop
buckle
heave
police
protection
provided
area
size
roads
available
flying
become
way
life
law
enforcement
officials
well
alaskans
expensive
way
life
bush
schools
scattered
along
aleutian
chain
yukon
valley
seaward
peninsula
islands
southeastern
alaska
expensive
maintain
discovery
oil
large
scale
picture
changed
quoting
naske
interpretive
history
alaskan
statehood
also
disagree
suggestion
justice
alaska
distribution
scheme
contravenes
privileges
immunities
clause
art
iv
constitution
clause
assures
nonresidents
state
shall
enjoy
privileges
immunities
residents
enjoy
designed
insure
citizen
state
ventures
state
privileges
citizens
state
enjoy
toomer
witsell
long
ago
held
clause
application
citizen
state
whose
laws
complained
constitutional
provision
alluded
create
rights
called
privileges
immunities
citizens
threw
around
clause
security
citizens
state
claimed
exercised
profess
control
power
state
governments
rights
citizens
cases
wall