Holding: The proffered legitimate state interest of saving money is not justification for a decision to discriminate against citizens who travel to that state because they are entitled to the privileges and immunities of all other citizens of that state.  The right to travel has three components: (1) The right of a citizen to enter and to leave another state; (2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second state; and (3) A traveler who elects to become a permanent resident has a right to be treated like any other citizen of that state.
The majority & dissent recognized that right to travel component 3 is protected in P or I clause. Thus the test is strict scrutiny.
a)    the number of people moving for higher welfare benefits is small & CA has a higher cost of living, CA said they did not pass the legislation to prevent that (Roe v. Anderson, 1998) and if it were it is an impermissible justification (Shapiro v. Thompson).
b)    The issue is not whether CA has a legit interest. Rather CA cannot meet this legitimate interest with discriminatory shemes
c)    Neither the duration of residency or state of prior residence does not have anything to do with the need of recipients.