Clarke v. Deckebach. 274 U.S. 392 (1927). On the same theory. the Court has upheld statutes that. in the absence of overriding treaties. limit the right of noncitizens to engage in exploitation of a States natural resources. restrict the devolution of real property to aliens.8 or deny to aliens the right to acquire and own land. Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission. 334 U.S. 410 (1948). however. cast doubt on the continuing validity of the special interest doctrine in all contexts. There the Court held that Californias purported ownership of fish in the ocean off its shores was not such a special public interest as would justify prohibiting aliens from making a living by fishing in those waters while permitting all others to do so. It was said: "The Fourteenth Amendment and the laws adopted under its authority thus embody a general policy that all persons lawfully in this country shall abide in any state on an equality of legal privileges with all citizens under nondiscriminatory laws." 334 U.S.. at Footnote at end of article. Whatever may be the contemporary vitality of the special public interest doctrine in other contexts after Takahashi. we conclude that a States desire to preserve limited welfare benefits for its own citizens is inadequate to justify Pennsylvanias making noncitizens ineligible for public assistance. and Arizonas restricting benefits to citizens and longtime resident aliens. First. the special public interest doctrine was heavily grounded on the notion that "[w]hatever is a privilege rather than a right. may be made dependent upon citizenship." People v. Crane. 214 N.Y.. at 164. 108 N.E.. at 430.
Keywords matched
noncitizens