Portable v. Non-Portable Benefits

I forgot to mention at the Q&A last night: With substantive questions that are emailed to me and that might be of interest and help to the class, my practice is to post the question (anonymized) and answer here.

Could you please explain the difference between portable and non-portable benefits under Saenz v. Roe? Why are these types of benefits called portable? And why did the Court make this distinction? Are there any other portable benefits other than resident tuition and divorce laws? Thank you. 

Non-portable benefits are those that will be used, at least in the short term, in the state and thus will, at least in the short term, benefit the state. The Saenz majority saw welfare benefits as non-portable because the benefits received in that year while living in California would be used in California and would benefit California. And you can’t really take that with you once the money received is spent to help you live during that year in California. 

Portable benefits are those that stay with you, so that if and when you leave the state, they follow you. Divorce, marriage, education are the obvious ones. The Court did not enumerate others, but you can think about other benefits one receives from the state and try to classify as one or the other.

The distinction explains why what California did in Saenz (providing lower welfare benefits during the first year in the state) was unlawful while allowing states to make college students wait one year before becoming eligible to receive in-state tuition is lawful. If that sounds like a rationalization, that was the dissent's point.