Privileges and Immunities

[Douglas Laycock]

Does anyone know what happened on the remand in United Building &
Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden? 465 U.S. 208
(1984).

 

Some background for those who don't know the case: Camden required
contractors and subcontractors on public works projects to set a 40% goal
for hiring Camden residents. The Court held, 8-1, that this preference for
local residents triggered the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article
IV. A preference for local residents was equivalent to a preference for
state residents, and public works employment was a privilege or immunity of
state citizens.  The Court remanded to consider Camden's argument that its
rule was justified by the desperate financial condition of the city.  No
further proceedings are reported. I assume the case settled, but I don't
know that, or on what terms. I'm teaching the case later in the semester, so
it would be good to know.

 

Camden and numerous other New Jersey cities have residency requirements for
firefighters, and maybe for other direct municipal employment, and those
requirements have been upheld against challenges based on the Equal
Protection Clause and the right to travel. The privileges and immunities
issue arose with respect to private employment on public works projects.

 

 

Douglas Laycock

Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law

University of Virginia Law School

580 Massie Road

Charlottesville, VA  22903

     434-243-8546

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20120311/7a1d2635/attachment.html>