Brief Fact Summary. A Camden, New Jersey ordinance requiring preferential hiring of city employees was held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be subject to the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Privileges and Immunities Clause does not preclude discrimination against citizens of other states where there is a “substantial reason” for the difference in treatment. The inquiry in each case must be concerned with whether such reasons do exist and whether the degree of discrimination bears a close relationship to them. Discrimination may be justified where non-residents are shown to “constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed.”
Facts. Plaintiff, United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden, challenged a city ordinance requiring that at least 40% of the employees of contractors and subcontractors working on city construction projects be Defendant-City’s residents. Plaintiff alleged that the ordinance violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the dormant commerce clause. The State of New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the Plaintiff’s Privileges and Immunities attack on the ground that the ordinance discriminates on municipal, not state residency. The court declined to apply the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the context of a municipal ordinance that has the same effect on out-of-state citizens and New Jersey citizens outside of Defendant-City.
Issue. Whether the Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to a municipal ordinance requiring preferential hiring on city construction work.
Whether an out-of-state resident’s interest in employment on public works contracts in another state is sufficiently fundamental to the promotion of interstate harmony so as to fall “within the purview” of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.