Corfield v. Coryell: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''Corfield v. Coryell'', 6 Fed. Cas. 546, (E.D. Pa. 1823) '''Facts''': A N.J. statute forbade anyone not "an actual inhabitant or resident" of the state to gather clams and oyst...") |
(Constitution_of_the_United_States#Section_2:_.28Comity_Clause.29) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
'''Facts''': A N.J. statute forbade anyone not "an actual inhabitant or resident" of the state to gather clams and oysters from the state's waters. | '''Facts''': A N.J. statute forbade anyone not "an actual inhabitant or resident" of the state to gather clams and oysters from the state's waters. | ||
'''Issue''': Is the N.J. statute a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause and did the law regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause? | '''Issue''': Is the N.J. statute a violation of the [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Section_2:_.28Comity_Clause.29|Privileges and Immunities Clause]] and did the law regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause? | ||
'''Holding''': No, the N.J. state law was permissible. The privileges that must be preserved are those that are fundamental; the fish within the state's waters were the common property of the state's citizens and it would be going too far to give equal right to non-residents under the privileges and immunities clause. | '''Holding''': No, the N.J. state law was permissible. The privileges that must be preserved are those that are fundamental; the fish within the state's waters were the common property of the state's citizens and it would be going too far to give equal right to non-residents under the privileges and immunities clause. | ||
Revision as of 15:11, June 24, 2022
Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546, (E.D. Pa. 1823)
Facts: A N.J. statute forbade anyone not "an actual inhabitant or resident" of the state to gather clams and oysters from the state's waters.
Issue: Is the N.J. statute a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause and did the law regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause?
Holding: No, the N.J. state law was permissible. The privileges that must be preserved are those that are fundamental; the fish within the state's waters were the common property of the state's citizens and it would be going too far to give equal right to non-residents under the privileges and immunities clause.
Comments: Fundamental privileges include:
- Protection by the government.
- Right to acquire and possess property
- Right to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject to police power
