Carolene Products Co.. 304 U.S. 144. 152153 n. 4 (1938)) for whom such heightened judicial solicitude is appropriate. Accordingly. it was said in Takahashi. 334 U.S. at 420. that ". . . the power of a state to apply its laws exclusively to its alien inhabitants as a class is confined within narrow limits." Arizona and Pennsylvania seek to justify their restrictions on the eligibility of aliens for public assistance solely on the basis of a States "special public interest" in favoring its own citizens over aliens in the distribution of limited resources such as welfare benefits. It is true that this Court on occasion has upheld state statutes that treat citizens and noncitizens differently. the ground for distinction having been that such laws were necessary to protect special interests of the State or its citizens. Thus. in Truax v. Ratch. 239 U.S. 33 (1915). the Court. in striking down an Arizona statute restricting the employment of aliens. emphasized that "[tihe discrimination defined by the act does not pertain to the regulation or distribution of the public domain. or of the common property or resources of the people of the State. the enjoyment of which may be limited to its citizens as against both aliens and the citizens of other States." 239 U.S.. at 3940.
Keywords matched
noncitizens