Editing Hicklin v. Orbeck

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Supreme Court of the United States
|date=June 1978
|appealed_from=Alaska Supreme Court
|facts=Due to the extremely cold and harsh climate in Alaska, companies were paying high compensations to workers in Alaska who worked in the oil and gas sectors.

An Alaska law gave preference to hiring Alaska residents over out-of-state workers who had come into Alaska for employment.
|procedural_history=Sidney Hicklin (plaintiff) is arguing against Edmund Orbeck, Commissioner of the Department of Labor of the State of Alaska.
|issues=Has Hicklin's experienced economic discrimination from Alaska's law under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, § 2, [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Section_2.2C_Clause_1:_Privileges_and_Immunities|Clause 1]]?
|holding=The Privileges and Immunities clause of Article 4 of the [[US Constitution]] prohibits discrimination in employing non-Alaska residents.
|rule=The Dormant Commerce Clause is applicable also because Alaska's oil and gas resources are bound for [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Commerce|interstate commerce]].
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/hicklin-v-orbeck
|case_text_source=Quimbee case brief
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/518/
|case_text_source=Justia
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/437/518
|case_text_source=Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School
}}
}}
@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 |case_text_source=Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School
 }}
-|Court_opinion_parts={{Court opinion part
-|opinion_type=majority
-|written_by=William J. Brennan Jr.
 }}
-}}
-Brennan wrote, "Even assuming that a State may validly attempt to alleviate its unemployment problem by requiring private employers within the State to discriminate against nonresidents—an assumption made at least dubious by ''Ward''[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/437/518#fn9 9]—it is clear that under the ''Toomer'' analysis reaffirmed in ''Mullaney'', Alaska Hire's discrimination against nonresidents cannot withstand scrutiny under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. "