United Building & Construction v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984) p.329

SUBJECT

Privileges and immunities

FACTS

City ordinance requiring that at least 40% of the employees of contractors and subcontractors working on city construction projects be Camden residents.

PROCEDURE

The Supreme Court of New Jersey rejected the privileges and immunities attack. This court reversed and remanded.

ISSUE

Whether the state law requiring a percentage of local workers was unconstitutional.

RATIONAL

2 step process:
1. As an initial matter the court must decide whether the ordinance burdens one of thos privileges and immunities.
2. as a threshold matter we must determine 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 clause (does the state have substantial reason for burdening the privieleges and immunities).
It does not preclude disrimination 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 relation to them.

NOTES

White - dealt with dormant commerce clause (see South-Central Timber case.
Camden - dealt with same White issue but under privileges and immunities two part test - (1) is the Privileges and Immunities burdened and (2) does the government have substantial reason for burdening the privileges and immunities.
Interesting to note the different outcomes based on what theory is argued: under dormant commerce clause it was okay for the state to require a minimum percentage of local workers (White), but under P&I it was not okay to require the minimum percentage.

Created on: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 at 15:41:26 (PDT)