By VDC staff

Can the state of Vermont impose residency requirements for its welfare programs? This was the topic of debate last week in the House Committee on Human Services when Representative Brenda Steady (R-Milton) asked if fraud could result from the “return home” provisions in H.594. 

According to the bill itself, the “return home” program will “…provide travel expenses and relocation assistance for certain homeless individuals who wish to return to their home states.” The state will contract with nonprofits or for-profits and ensure that the people receiving the benefit do not already have stable housing or financial independence. 

Information for In Committee news reports are sourced from GoldenDomeVt.com and the General Assembly website. 

According to a 2025 report compiled by the Housing and Homelessness Alliance of Vermont, there were 3,386 homeless individuals living in Vermont in 2025, with 8% living in unsheltered homelessness. 

H.594, introduced by Rep. Eric Maguire (R-Rutland 5), is the second attempt of the 2025-2026 legislature to reform the “hotel/motel” program and create a sustainable system for addressing homelessness. The first attempt, H.91, was vetoed at the end of the 2025 legislative session over costs and inadequate system reform, as indicated by a memo from Secretary Jenney Samuelson in May of 2025. 

During discussion with witnesses, Steady expressed concern over what she viewed as loopholes in the system where individuals could receive free travel to other states and then receive additional benefits if they decide to return to Vermont. 

In recent years, the question of “residency” has often cropped up in debate surrounding Vermont’s assistance programs. For example, should people live and work in Vermont for a certain amount of time before receiving taxpayer funded assistance? 

Supporters of residency requirements have argued that Vermont’s programs are too generous and that they attract homeless individuals from outside Vermont who have no roots here. Opponents of the requirements downplay that people are traveling to Vermont in search of housing and argue that such questions take away focus from needy Vermonters who need these services. 

Last week, the House Committee on Human Services heard testimony from an attorney with the Office of Legislative Council who introduced the committee to the legal aspects of the residency question.

In a memo issued to the committee regarding the rulings of the Supreme Court on this issue, the attorney stated, “A durational residency requirement as a condition for obtaining a benefit that is a necessity of life violates an individual’s constitutional right to travel and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, unless there is a compelling state interest for imposing the requirement. To date, no case reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court involving welfare- and health-related benefits” The attorney went on to give examples of the Supreme Court overturning laws in cases where the court felt that the state didn’t meet the burden of compelling state interest. 

However, the attorney goes on to explain that through its rulings in Vlandis v. Kline (1973) and Sosna v. Iowa (1975), the court has clarified that benefits that go with the person and are “portable”, such as public college education, may have residency duration requirements imposed on them to avoid individuals obtaining residency just long enough to secure those benefits. 

So, what does this mean for Vermont and Rep Maguire’s bill, and what safeguards are there against fraud? It means that Vermont should expect a constitutional fight if lawmakers seek duration based residency requirements for shelter, healthcare, and other “necessities of life” benefits. There are provisions in the bill to identify and prevent fraudulent use of state benefits, but as for Rep. Steady’s question, the answer doesn’t seem clear.