Mayor of New York v. Miln
Mayor of New York v. Miln, 33 U.S. 120 (1837).
Facts: New York State required the master of a ship to report on every passenger who intended to go to NYC. The master also had to post security for indigent immigrants. Miln (D) violated this law, and the mayor of NY (P) brought an action to recover penalties.
Issue: May a state prevent indigents from immigrating into its territory?
Holding: Yes.
Concurrence (Thompson): The law is permissible even if it regulates commerce because Congress has not exercised its power in this area.
Dissent (Story): If Congress had passed the same law; it would clearly be a regulation of commerce. Regulation of commerce is a subject that belongs exclusively to Congress; it is a means prohibited to the states. Congress has acted in this area by regulating passenger ships and vessels carrying immigrants. The state’s law defeats the purpose of the federal regulations. (Completely tries to shut out states with the broadening of federal power) (Dormant Commerce Clause.)
Comments:
- Prior to adoption of the Constitution, the states, as sovereigns had power to exclude immigrants, or to regulate their entrance. Under the Constitution, however, Congress has power to regulate commerce. The question is whether P’s law is a regulation of commerce.
- The law is intended to protect the state from the burden of caring for indigents. The means adopted are suited to that purpose. The states have retained power over the objects that concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. This law falls within this power because it operates within the territory of NY, for the benefit of the people of NY.
- The state has the police power as a sovereign.
- This case differs from Gibbons. That case involved the right to navigate navigable waters, clearly a matter for congress to regulate, as opposed to the internal matter regulated in this case. Also, this case presents no collision between state and federal law, unlike the Gibbons case.
- States retain full and exclusive authority over matters of internal police. A state may protect itself against the moral pestilence of paupers just as it may guard against the physical pestilence of disease carried by imported goods.
- People are not goods. (If goods, then commerce; if people, then civil rights.)
