Yes, New Jersey's law is allowed. The Constitution says states have to give citizens from other states the same basic 'privileges and immunities' as their own citizens. But the judge explained this only applies to very important, 'fundamental' rights that everyone in a free country should have. These include things like being protected by the government, the right to live and be free, own property, and travel. The right to fish for oysters in a specific state's waters is not one of those fundamental rights. Instead, the oysters are like common property that the state looks after for its own citizens. New Jersey can make rules to protect its oysters from being all used up, and that includes saving them for its own residents.

No, the New Jersey rule does not go against the United States rules. New Jersey is allowed to control how people use the oysters and other natural things in the state, even if it means people from other states can't use them the same way. This is because those things belong to the people of New Jersey all together. Letting people from other states use them however they want could make it so there aren't enough left for the people who live in New Jersey. The rule doesn't mess with the United States government's job of controlling trade between the states, because it's not about buying and selling oysters, just about catching them. It also doesn't mess with the special rules for ships and the ocean, because even though there used to be ocean rules about oysters a long time ago, the United States government hasn't made any rules like that. The place where this all happened is part of New Jersey's water and land, even if it's out past the edge of the shore.

No. A state law prohibiting citizens of other states from gathering oysters in its waters does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause because the right to take from a state's common property is not a fundamental privilege or immunity guaranteed to all citizens of the several states. The court distinguished between fundamental rights, which are protected by the clause, and rights which are particular to state citizenship. Fundamental rights are those which belong to citizens of all free governments, such as protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty; the right to acquire and possess property; the right to pass through or reside in any other state for purposes of trade, agriculture, or professional pursuits; and the right to institute and maintain actions in the courts of the state. The court reasoned that a state's fisheries are common property held in trust for its own citizens, akin to tenants in common. A state has the power to regulate this common property to prevent its depletion and may exclude citizens of other states from participating in its use. Such a regulation is not a grant of a co-tenancy in the common property of one state to the citizens of all other states. The court also rejected arguments that the law violated the Commerce Clause, finding it was a regulation of internal state property before the oysters became articles of trade, and did not infringe on federal admiralty jurisdiction, as states retain the power to regulate their own fisheries.

No, the act of the New Jersey legislature does not conflict with the Constitution of the United States because it is a valid exercise of the state's power to regulate its natural resources and internal affairs. The state has the authority to control the use of its fisheries and oyster beds, and to impose penalties for violations, even on citizens of other states, because these resources are the common property of the people of New Jersey. The privileges and immunities clause does not grant citizens of other states an equal right to use New Jersey's fisheries, as that would undermine the state's ability to manage its resources for the benefit of its own citizens. The act also does not interfere with Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce because it does not restrict trade in oysters, only the taking of them from state waters. Finally, the act does not violate federal admiralty jurisdiction because, while some admiralty offenses related to fisheries existed historically, Congress has not legislated to make the taking of oysters a federal admiralty crime. The place where the offense occurred, Maurice River Cove, is within the territorial waters of New Jersey and Cumberland County based on the state's historical boundaries, even if those waters extend beyond the low water mark.

Corfield v. Coryell

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot