Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare of Arizona v. Richardson et al.
The Court determined that state restrictions on welfare benefits for legal aliens but not for citizens violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
403 U.S. 365 · No. 609 · 1970 term · Burger Court
Decided Jun 14, 1971 · argued Mar 22, 1971
Civil rights · Immigration and naturalization: welfare benefits
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: Harry Blackmun
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Affirmed. Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare of Arizona lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Arizona U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare of Arizona was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that state restrictions on welfare benefits for legal aliens but not for citizens violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court invalidated an Arizona law that required citizenship or 15 years of residence to receive welfare benefits. The 9–0 decision was written by Harry A. Blackmun.
The state argued that rational basis review should apply, which would require the non-citizen to prove that the law served no conceivable legitimate state interest, or alternatively that the law was not rationally related to the government's purpose. However, the court applied the strict scrutiny standard, holding, "Aliens as a class are a prime example of a 'discrete and insular' minority for whom such heightened judicial solicitude is appropriate."
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1970 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Harry BlackmunWrote the majority opinion
John HarlanWrote a concurrence
William DouglasJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
Hugo BlackJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare of ArizonaState (Arizona)
- Respondent
- Richardson et al.Alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 14, 1971DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: affirmed. Graham, Commissioner, Department of Public Welfare of Arizona lost.
- Mar 22, 1971ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Arizona U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
2 other argued cases since 1946 on immigration and naturalization: welfare benefits, newest first.
- United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, et al. v. Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, Inc., et al.519 U.S. 1Oct 21, 1996 · 519 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare v. Diaz et al.426 U.S. 67Jun 1, 1976 · 426 U.S. 67Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.