Legal Document

526 U.S. 473119 S.Ct. 1430143 L.Ed.2d 635 134 F.3d 1400, affirmed. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98 97 RITA L. SAENZ, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., PETITIONERSv.BRENDA ROE and ANNA DOE etc. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT May 17, 1999 Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In 1992, California enacted a statute limiting maximum welfare benefits available to newly arrived residents. The scheme limits amount payable family that has resided in State for less than 12 months by family's prior residence. questions presented this case are whether 1992 was constitutional when it and, if not, an amendment Social Security Act Congress 1996 affects determination. 2 * is not only one largest, most populated, beautiful States Nation; also generous. Like all other States, participated several programs authorized partially funded Federal Government. Its programs, however, provide higher level serve more needy citizens those States. year expensive Aid Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which replaced Temporary Assistance Needy (TANF), provided average 2,645,814 persons per month at annual cost $2.9 billion. cash benefit two mother child $456 month, but neighboring Arizona, example, $275. 3 order make relatively modest reduction its vast budget, Legislature §11450.03 state Welfare Institutions Code. That section sought change AFDC program new residents, first they live California, would have received their residence.1 Because either had conform federal specifications or receive waiver from Secretary Health Human Services qualify reimbursement, required approval take effect. October issued purporting grant such approval. 4 On December 21, three residents who were eligible filed action Eastern District challenging constitutionality durational residency requirement §11450.03. Each plaintiff alleged she recently moved relatives escape abusive circumstances. One returned after living Louisiana seven years, second been Oklahoma six weeks third came Colorado. her monthly ensuing be substantially lower under Thus, former $190 $341 respectively even though full $641; resident Colorado, just child, limited $280 as opposed $504 two. 5 Court temporary restraining hearing, preliminarily enjoined implementation statute. Judge Levi found "produces substantial disparities levels makes no accommodation different costs exist states."2 Relying primarily on our decisions Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 618 (1969), Zobel Williams, 457 55 (1982), he concluded placed "a penalty decision migrate treated equal basis existing residents." Green Anderson, 811 F. Supp. 516, 521 (ED Cal. 1993). his view, purpose measure deter migration poor people into State, unconstitutional reason. And conserve funds, failed explain why entire burden saving should imposed Appeals summarily affirmed reasons stated Judge. 26 95 (CA9 1994). 6 We granted State's petition certiorari. 513 922 (1994). were, unable reach merits because Secretary's invalidated separate proceeding,3 acknowledged implemented without further Secretary. vacated judgment directed dismissed. Anderson Green, 557 (1995) (per curiam).4 Accordingly, remained inoperative until Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation PRWORA, 110 Stat. 2105. 7 PRWORA TANF. expressly authorizes any receives block TANF "apply rules (including amounts) [TANF] another months." 42 U.S.C. § 604(c) (1994 ed., II). With statutory provision effect, longer needed specific implement Department therefore "All County Letter" announcing enforcement commence April 1, 1997. 8 All Letter clarifies certain aspects Even members lived lives, left "on January 29th, intending reside state, 15th," determined law residence 29 15, assuming California's.5 Moreover, applies regardless motive moving California. instructions inapplicable families country. II 9 1997, respondents making essentially same claims asserted plaintiffs Green,6 PRWORA's requirement. As certified class action.7 advised Attorney General United drawn question, did seek intervene file amicus brief. Reasoning permitted, require, impose requirements, existence affect legal analysis Green. 10 He did, additional comments parties' factual contentions. noted challenge plaintiffs' evidence indicating that, although sixth highest Nation absolute terms,8 housing factored in, rank 18th; coming 43 face California; actually little, any, impact residential choices made people. hand, availability homeless assistance food stamp allowance $1 stamps every $3 reduced offset disparity between old Notwithstanding ameliorating facts, disagree contention create significant newcomers recipients over year. 11 relied squarely undisputed fact save some $10.9 million surely small part expenditures approximately billion program. It contended appropriate exercise budgetary authority long penalize right travel. reasoned payment eliminated potentially punitive measure. concluded, relevant comparison rather term again Without finally deciding merits, issuance preliminary injunction. Roe 1400 1998). agreed Court's view passage analysis, established probability success might suffer irreparable harm became operative. Although consistent views courts addressed issue,9 we certiorari importance case. 524 ___ (1998).10 now affirm. III 13 word "travel" text Constitution. Yet "constitutional travel another" firmly embedded jurisprudence. Guest, 383 745, 757 (1966). Indeed, Stewart reminded us so important "assertable against private interference well governmental virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed Constitution all." Id., 643 (concurring opinion). 14 Shapiro, reviewed provisions denied Connecticut, Columbia, Pennsylvania, within respective jurisdictions immediately preceding applications assistance. pausing identify source began noting "recognized nature Union concepts liberty unite require free throughout length breadth land uninhibited statutes, rules, regulations unreasonably restrict movement." 629. held "constitutionally impermissible" enact requirements inhibiting State.11 classification effect imposing violated Equal Protection Clause "unless shown necessary promote compelling interest," id., 634, showing made. 15 argues impermissible unlike legislation does arrivals ineligible during submits instead being subjected strictest scrutiny, upheld supported rational legitimate interest $10 satisfies test. elect participate proceedings Appeals, curiae advanced novel argument enactment allows adopt "specialized choice-of-law-type provision" "should subject intermediate review," merely requiring "substantially related objective."12 debate about standard review, together potential relevance statute, persuades will useful focus rely. IV 16 "right travel" discussed cases embraces least components. protects citizen enter leave welcome visitor unfriendly alien temporarily present travelers become permanent like State. 17 go place another, including cross borders while en route, vindicated Edwards 314 160 (1941), impeded interstate indigent. reaffirmed 745 (1966), afforded protection " 'right freely Georgia use highway facilities instrumentalities commerce Georgia.' 757. Given obstacle respondents' entry think correct directly impair movement. For purposes case, therefore, need particular "free ingress regress from" mentioned Articles Confederation,13 may simply "conceived beginning concomitant stronger created." 758. 18 component is, protected sentence Article IV, §2, provides: 19 "The Citizens each shall entitled Privileges Immunities States." 20 virtue person's citizenship, travels return home end journey, enjoy "Privileges States" visits.14 This removes "from disabilities alienage Paul Virginia, Wall. 168, 180 (1869) ("[W]ithout . removing giving them equality privilege Republic constituted little league States; exists"). provides protections nonresidents obtain employment, Hicklin Orbeck, 437 518 (1978), procure medical services, Doe Bolton, 410 179, 200 (1973), engage commercial shrimp fishing, Toomer Witsell, 334 385 (1948). Those "absolute," "does bar discrimination where there reason beyond mere 396. There nonresident pay hunting license, see Baldwin Fish Game Comm'n Mont., 436 371, 390 391 enroll university, Vlandis Kline, 412 441, 445 identified acceptable qualifying "the 'citizen A ventures B' settle establish home." Zobel, U.S., 74 (O'Connor, J., concurring judgment). Permissible justifications nonresident's move 21 What issue then, aspect privileges immunities enjoyed arrival's status citizen, States.15 plainly opening words Fourteenth Amendment: 22 born naturalized jurisdiction thereof, wherein reside. No enforce abridge ."16 23 Despite fundamentally differing concerning coverage Amendment, notably expressed majority dissenting opinions Slaughter-House Cases, 36 (1873), always common ground Writing Miller explained conferred "is can, own volition, bon ; fide therein, rights State." 80. Bradley, dissent, used language point: 24 states now, ever had, power citizenship classes persons. perfect chooses, claim citizen; whole nation pledged sustain him right. bound cringe superior, pray act grace, means enjoying citizens." 112 113. 25 "have political capacities, federal," adds special force others share citizenship.17 Neither rationality nor review judge rule discriminates domiciled categorical articulated supra, 9, strict. V involves completed travel, "incidentally" beside point. Were concerned solely actual deterrence migration, persuaded partial withholding constitutes lesser incursion outright denial benefits. See Dunn Blumstein, 405 330, 339 (1972). But since citizen's equally residence, discriminatory itself penalty. 27 represent unrelated time thus occasion consider what weight given bona fides questioned. whatever consumed remain danger recognition encourage enough acquire readily portable benefit, divorce college education, original domicile. See, e.g., Sosna Iowa, 419 393 (1975); 441 (1973). 28 classifications challenged many defined entirely (a) period (b) location residences disfavored members. favored beneficiaries includes year, plus last country generous California's. broad category lifetime sub-category favorably, smaller whose whence came. To justify §11450.03, must sound fiscal policy discriminate permissible apply variety class. These justified applicants migrating reasons. First, reasonable assume motivated obtaining benefits, empirical Judge, takes account high indicates number quite large motive.18 Second, represented reason.19 Third, unequivocally impermissible. 30 Disavowing desire fence out indigent, justification multitiered scheme. question accomplish chosen. An evenhanded, across-the-board 72 cents beneficiary produce result. negative answer rest weakness purported justification. rests Citizenship Amendment equates residence: "That for, allow degrees based residence." 69. clear tolerate hierarchy 45 subclasses similarly situated residence.20 Thus doubly vulnerable: duration identity Nor do factors bear relationship equitable allocation funds distributed among citizens. reject contributory rationale residents: 31 "But facts these cases. Appellants' reasoning logically permit schools, parks, libraries deprive police fire protection. Indeed apportion services according past tax contributions 632 633. 32 64. short, money VI 33 remains congressional somehow resuscitates answered, consistently authorize violate Amendment.21 limitation powers National Government 34 I grants legislate areas. legislative are, scope Framers' affirmative delegation, principle "that exercised way violates 'lay collect Taxes,' taxing power, invoked self-incrimination." Williams Rhodes, 23, (1968) (footnote omitted). implicitly prohibited passing purports validate violation. 35 "Section gives indeed command 'to secure enjoyment civil laws invasion .' Ex parte 100 339, 346 (1880). Congress' §5, 'is adopting measures guarantees Amendment; §5 restrict, abrogate, dilute guarantees.' Katzenbach Morgan, 384 641, 651, n. give deference classifications, neither can denies Amendment. Califano Goldfarb, 430 199, 210 (1977); (1968)." Mississippi Univ. Women Hogan, 458 718, 732 733 (1982). Solicitor defend argued features sufficient warrant inquiry before section's validity, perhaps invalid insofar California.22 37 points broader discretion AFDC, differences incentives residences. persuade necessarily greater included examples California's $673 four Mississippi's $144 comparable family. convinced eliminating classifying burdens abated repeatedly characterizing sort specialized choice-of-law rule."23 alone 38 suggests recognize concern history "States 'race bottom' setting programs."24 Again, difficult AFDC. savings resulting policy, spread equitably program, miniscule levels. legislators apparently interpreted concern, prompt reduce sufficiently "to emigration recipients."25 speculation unlikely eventuality upholding 39 Finally, subcategories aid arrival suggestion ironic reasons: severe neediest classes; significantly obtain, claimed tenable; confine correctly characterizes invidious discouraging generally settling State."26 40 41 rich poor, choose "of reside." Const., Amdt. 14, §1. select citizens.27 itself, was, Cardozo put it, "framed upon theory peoples sink swim together, run prosperity salvation union division." G. A. Seelig, Inc., 294 511, 523 (1935). ordered. Notes 44 1. Welf. & Inst. Code Ann. (West 1999) "(a) payments specified paragraph (1) subdivision Section 11450, paid calculated accordance exceed "(b) operative date ensure continued compliance plan following: "(1) Title (Subchapter (commencing 601) Chapter Code). "(2) IX [sic] 1396) Code)." 2. referred official table Fair Market Rents except Massachusetts. 521, 1993); Declaration Robert Greenstein, App. 91 94. 46 3. Beno Shalala, 1057 47 4. February 1996, waivers changes declined distinction Pet. Cert. 52. 48 5. Record (Plaintiffs' Exh. 3, Attachment 1). 49 6. Columbia. both 50 7. stipulation parties, court 'all future applied twelve consecutive application aid.' 20. 51 8. Forty-four Columbia 22, 10. 52 9. Maldonado Houston, 157 179 (CA3 1998) (finding two-tier infringement travel); 1994), unripe, curiam); Hicks Peters, 2d 1003 (ND Ill. (granting injunction requirement); Westenfelder Ferguson, 998 146 (RI (holding incapable surviving rational-basis review). Two reached conclusion. Mitchell Steffen, 504 N. W. 198 (Minn. 1993), cert. denied, 510 1081 (1994) (striking down similar Minnesota law); Sanchez Services, J. Super. 11, 713 1056 (1998) system); cf. Jones Milwaukee County, 168 Wis. 892, 485 (1992) 60-day waiting applicant general relief unconstitutional). 53 After argued, petitioner Rita Saenz Eloise Director, Services. 54 11. "We doubt one-year waiting-period device suited discourage influx constitutionally impermissible." "Thus, deterring in-migration indigents cannot created If 'no chill assertion penalizing them, then [is] patently unconstitutional.' Jackson, 570, 581 631. 12. Brief Amicus Curiae 8, 56 13. 4th article, respecting extending formed exactly principles article Confederation." Records Convention 1787, p. (M. Farrand ed. 1966). Confederation 57 14. Corfield Coryell, Cas. 546 (CCED Pa. 1823) (Washington, circuit) ("fundamental" clause include pass through, state"). 58 15. Framers modeled Immunities" IV. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033 1034 (1866) (statement Rep. Bingham). Dred Scott Sandford, How. (1857), blacks could citizenship. overruled decision. Amendment's freed black ensuring precluding abridging national 59 16. remainder "nor person life, liberty, property, due process law; deny laws." 60 17. "Federalism Nation's discovery. split atom sovereignty. genius idea federal, other. system unprecedented form design, establishing orders government, direct relationship, privity, set mutual obligations governed it." Term Limits, Inc. Thornton, 514 779, 838 (Kennedy, concurring) 61 18. 26. 62 19. "apparent California." 1404 63 Cohen, Discrimination Against New Citizens: Update, Const. Comm. 73, 79 ("[J]ust concede name treating still states"). 64 21. 'Congress enlist cooperation joint federal-state Clause.' 618, 641 (1969)." Townsend Swank, 404 282, 291 (1971). 65 22. 29, 66 23. 9; 20, 24, 27, 28, 29. 67 24. H. R. 104 1337 (1996) ("States want deterred doing fear attract numbers bordering States"); 68 25. States' Perspective Reform: Hearing Senate Committee Finance, 104th (1995). 69 30, 70 27. Jackson observed, "it abridgment, Union, sojourn establishment therein gaining resultant thereof. this, nothing." 160, 183 (1941) Rehnquist, C. 71 Chief whom Thomas joins, dissenting. today breathes life previously dormant decision, Colgate Harvey, 296 (1935), five years later Madden Kentucky, 309 83 (1940). uses strike believe falling head "good-faith requirement." 130 ago requires result, dissent. 73 Much unremarkable sound. clearly prohibits impeding transport indigent Califor- nia, classic barrier rightly struck down. country's history, calls "component" ante, 10, entirety Taney dissent Passenger 283 (1849): 75 community, repass through interruption, entering territories harbours inconsistent belong objects intended attain. Such nothing discord irritation, very possess 492. 76 Crandall Nevada, 35, (1868); Fears, 270, 274 (1900); Memorial Hospital Maricopa 415 250, 280 (1974) (Rehnquist, dissenting) (collecting discussing cases). wisely holds imposes infringe traditional conception 77 difficulty aligning "intending [their] journey." Nonresident visitors (1869); (1978). right-to-travel above, here, stay Respondents fall outside §2. 78 agree proposition "citizen 36, 80 (1873). how tries marry distinct rights. "traveling" sense finishes journey plans home. logic, recognized come play individual stops traveling intent distinct, reciprocal, dicta Cases quoted treats 80.1 At most, restrictions individual's indirectly calculus place, attenuated uncertain folding has, conflated striking here. (1969) 1-year receiving benefit); 330 (1972) vote elections); county entitlement nonemergency hospitalization emergency care). marked sharp departure none prohibited. 254 255 ("Whatever ultimate involved Shapiro"); 671 672 (Harlan, dissenting). 81 Instead, restricting votes, impermissibly "penalized" having 257. settled amounted "deprivations rights" operated "penalize" Y. Soto-Lopez, 476 898, 907 (1986) (plurality cases, dividing triggered rationally furthered government purpose. 55, 60, (1982); Hooper Bernalillo Assessor, 472 612, (1985).2 While wrong result my proper track identifying interests protecting; namely, individuals unjustifiable infringements 82 much underbrush abandoning effort define "important benefits" Under analytical framework, ill-defined circumstances, classify offending departs progeny, paying lipservice all. demonstrates, relation ability test good-faith circle effectively disavowing segregating secured Clause, testing here latter misplaced efforts fold understanding unearthing tomb ignores assure current core specifically conditions "become Union" "same State" "bona therein." Wall., (emphasis added). redefining "always carefully distinguished differentiate nonresidents, durational, fixed date, point treat differently migrated 903, (citing 84 opportunity retain ferret intend run. Martinez Bynum, 461 321, 328 329 (1983): "A requirement, appropriately uniformly applied, furthers assuring demanding restricted "residence" "both physical presence intention remain," approved Texas eligibility tuition-free education met minimum definition 332 333. 85 element easy police, subjective not. unworkable futile inquire resident's remain. Hence, employ objective criteria resolve in-state Recognizing practical appeal criteria, sanctioned tuition rates universities. Starns Malkerson, 401 985 (1971), aff'g 326 234 1970) (upholding tuition); Sturgis Washington, 414 1057, 368 (WD Wash. 1973) (same). declared: students fact, educational purposes, advantage rates." 453 454 done courts, 393, 406 409 (1975), party registration voting primary elections, Rosario Rockefeller, 752, 760 762 86 exercising terminate marriage, elections enjoy, material difference subsidies university. people, attractive. Durational regulate subsidies, payments. Dandridge 397 471, 487 (1970) ("[T]he empower second-guess officials charged responsibility allocating public myriad recipients."). 87 recognizes determine avoid issue. asserts "no questioned." ibid. understand absence link bears objectively yet yardstick channel legitimate. 88 respect, eligibility. far operating budget seeking attend recipients, completion cycle decide finance increased obligations. 89 distinguish contending produces "portable" Ibid. "you can't you" apparent real, offers guidance future. insurance, impoverished meet demands daily training, look job. spent income employed employable stick recipient back true Similarly, "consumed" wherever goes. subsidy investment human capital subsidy, attendant "portable."3 More importantly, foray social economics demonstrates line metaphysical, plumb policies animating "essence" hence "portability." almost ago, intractable economic, social, philosophical problems business Court." Dandridge, 487. 90 "assur[e] Martinez, 328. Sosa. benefits; indeed, whatsoever recipient's 5-year eligibility; range accompanying supportive services; health care Medicaid. Petitioners preclude payments, recognizes, 6, pinch mitigated increase allowance. permissibly balances needs subsistence express goes show reasonableness Legislature, represented, protect resources experimentation reform. revamp total packages, flexibility exploited. decided good power. reasonably objective, narrowly tailored prevent 92 confirms kind discussion worth quoting full: lest said considering excluded, venture suggest character, Constitution, laws. "One described Nevada[, (1868)]. great country, implied seat assert transact protection, offices, administering functions. access seaports, operations foreign conducted, subtreasuries, justice States.' 'that established, States;' citizens, Nevada." 93 Burger aptly Zobel: "In reality, refers analysis. Right examined, terms, distinctions 94 divorce. Thomas, 96 join Justice's write separately address majority's conclusion Ante, attributes meaning likely unintended ratified. "[n]o Unlike Due Process Clauses, assumed near-talismanic modern law, read There, abridged granting monopoly slaughtering company. 63, 66. "as 74. Rather "privileges citizens" "belonging such." 75. specify fell category, few did. (stating "nearly organized instituted," "those fundamental," Clause). majority, ascertain Clause.1 American phrase (or close approximation) appears stem 1606 Charter "all Persons Subjects, dwell inhabit Colonies HAVE Liberties, Franchises, abiding born, Realme England." Constitutions, Colonial Charters Other Organic Laws 3788 (F. Thorpe 1909). colonial charters contained guarantees.2 Years later, tensions England increased, colonists adopted resolutions reasserting English citizenship.3 99 colonists' repeated assertions maintained rights, "born realm England" "natural born" founding, terms "privileges" "immunities" (and counterparts) understood refer fundamental liberties broadly, Presumably Second Continental Confederation, inhabitants paupers, vagabonds fugitives excepted, Art. superceded "[t]he cl. Bushrod Washington's landmark Fed. (No. 230) 1825), reflects historical understanding. Corfield, Pennsylvania Jersey "actual inhabitant resident" harvesting oysters waters. 550. sitting Circuit Justice, rejected IV's Clause. reasoned, "we accede constitution, permitted exclusively 552. Washington concluded: 101 feel hesitation confining expressions nature, fundamental; belong, governments; have, times, compose becoming free, independent, sovereign. tedious enumerate. They may, comprehended following heads: government; property kind, pursue happiness safety; nevertheless restraints justly prescribe whole. trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, otherwise; writ habeas corpus; institute maintain actions state; exemption taxes impositions elective franchise, regulated constitution exercised. These, mentioned, strictly speaking, immunities." Id. 551 102 (such harvest waters) chooses available. endorsed colonial-era "immunities," concluding encompassed States.4 103 indisputably influenced Members When gathered frequently, matter course, appealed arguing guarantee opinion. Harrison, Reconstructing Yale 1385, 1418 (referring Member's "obligatory quotation Corfield"). speech introducing Senate, Senator Howard Corfield.5 2765 (1866). Furthermore, Member refuted notion undergirded Clause.6 appear wisdom standing alone, dispositive insight Nevertheless, references combined Clause's supports inference adopted, positive law. "discriminates" distribution contrary dubious best. 105 out, ante comes surprise relies because, 2, sapped meaning. breathe today, fails underpinnings demise contributed disarray jurisprudence, open reevaluating Before invoking endeavor framers thought meant. displace, augment, portions substantive failure raises specter convenient tool inventing "predilections happen Moore East Cleveland, 431 494, 502 (1977). 106 respectfully 107 Legal scholars mean meant 1873. (Clause antidiscrimination provision); D. Currie, Supreme 341 351 (1985) (same); Crosskey, Politics History 1089 1095 (1953) incorporates eight Amendments Bill Rights); M. Curtis, Shall Abridge Rights rights); B. Siegan, (1987) Lockean natural Ackerman, Constitutional Politics/Constitutional Law, 453, 536 (1989) Ely, Democracy Distrust (1980) "was delegation decision-makers document lists directions finding"); Berger, Judiciary (2d 1997) forbids race respect listed Civil 1866); Bork, Tempting America 166 (1990) inscrutable obliterated ink blot). 108 1620 England, Thorpe, 1839 (guaranteeing "[l]iberties, ffranchizes, Denizens naturall Subjects"); 1622 reprinted 553 "[l]iberties 1629 Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1857 "liberties subjects"); 1632 Maine, 1635 "[l]iberties[,] Francheses Immunityes belonging borne Maryland, 1682 "Privileges, Franchises Liberties"); 1663 Carolina, 2747 "liberties, franchises, privileges" inviolate); Rhode Island Providence Plantations, 3220 "libertyes immunityes ffree 1732 Georgia, 773 franchises denizens subjects"). 109 Resolves, Prologue Revolution: Sources Documents Stamp Crisis (E. Morgan 1959) ("Resolved, essential British Government, founded Law God Nature, Mankind Therefore, Resolved Man Property Consent inherent Right, Rights, People Great Britain fully confirmed Magna Charta"); Virginia Colonists aforesaid declared Privileges, Intents Purposes, Realm England"); 1774 Statement Violation Journals (1904) ("[O]ur ancestors, colonies, liberties, natural-born subjects, [t]hat forfeited, surrendered lost rights"). During half 19th century, Campbell Morris, Harr. 535, 554 (Md. 1797) (Chase, J.) Douglass Stephens, Del. Ch. 465, 470 (1821) "absolute men have"); Kent, Commentaries (1836) "confined [rights] fundamental"). Antieau, Paul's Perverted True Meaning Four, Wm. Mary Rev. (1967) sources). 111 observed while, "undertaken extent immunities," gave "some intimation probably judiciary." debates 1866, support legislation. generally, 56. Act's sponsor, Trumble, "fundamental man man, exists in." 476. widely regarded precursor tenBroek, 201 (rev. 1965) ("The historians agree, places cavil, designed Freedmen's Bureau bills, particularly latter, doubt").

Classification Label: 1