Hicklin v. Orbeck
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
|Hicklin v. Orbeck|
|Court||Supreme Court of the United States|
|Date decided||June 1978|
|Appealed from||Alaska Supreme Court|
|majority||written by William J. Brennan Jr.|
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.
Sidney Hicklin (plaintiff) is arguing against Edmund Orbeck, Commissioner of the Department of Labor of the State of Alaska.
Has Hicklin's experienced economic discrimination from Alaska's law under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, § 2, Clause 1?
The Privileges and Immunities clause of Article 4 of the US Constitution prohibits discrimination in employing non-Alaska residents.
The Dormant Commerce Clause is applicable also because Alaska's oil and gas resources are bound for interstate commerce.
Case Text Links
- Case text at Quimbee case brief
- Case text at Justia
- Case text at Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School
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 Ward9—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. "