Shapiro v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
1,221 federal appellate · 716 district · 2,144 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6,166 later decisions (299 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973)
1,221 federal appellate · 716 district · 2,144 state decisions — followed in 49 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 26 U.S.C. § 4081 · 26 U.S.C. § 4261 · 42 U.S.C. § 1301 (§ 1101 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1351 (§ 1401 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1352 (§ 1402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 45 U.S.C. § 1
Relies on United States v. O'Brien · Reynolds v. Sims · McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.
Cited together with Dunn v. Blumstein · Dandridge v. Williams · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County · Graham v. Richardson
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6,166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.”
57 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.”
54 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We recognize that a State has a valid interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its programs. It may legitimately attempt to limit its expenditures, whether for public assistance, public education, or any other program. But a State may not accomplish such a purpose by invidious distinctions between classes of its citizens. It could not, for example, reduce expenditures for education by barring indigent children from its schools. Similarly, in the cases before us, appellants must do more than show that denying welfare benefits to new residents saves money. The saving of welfare costs cannot be an independent ground for an invidious classification.”
32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Plyler v. Doe · Bowen v. Gilliard
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.