Edwards v. California
314 U.S. 160 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law prohibiting the bringing or transportation of any indigent person into the state places an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce and thus violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Facts:
- In December 1939, Fred Edwards, a U.S. citizen and resident of California, drove from his home in Marysville, California, to Spur, Texas.
- Edwards' purpose was to bring his wife's brother, Frank Duncan, a U.S. citizen and Texas resident, back to California with him.
- While in Texas, Edwards became aware that Duncan was an indigent person, having last been employed by the Works Progress Administration and possessing only about $20.
- Knowing Duncan's indigent status, Edwards transported him in his car from Texas to Marysville, California, arriving on January 5, 1940.
- By the time Duncan arrived in California, all his money had been spent.
- Duncan lived with Edwards for approximately ten days without employment before obtaining financial assistance from the federal Farm Security Administration.
Procedural Posture:
- A complaint was filed against Edwards in a California Justice Court, a court of first instance, for violating § 2615 of the state's Welfare and Institutions Code.
- Edwards' demurrer to the complaint, which argued the statute was unconstitutional, was overruled by the court.
- Following a trial, the Justice Court convicted Edwards and imposed a suspended sentence of six months imprisonment.
- Edwards appealed his conviction to the Superior Court of Yuba County, acting as an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the statute as a valid exercise of state police power.
- As no further appeal was available in the state courts, Edwards appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a California law that makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly bring or assist in bringing an indigent non-resident into the state violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Byrnes
Yes. The California law imposes an unconstitutional barrier to interstate commerce. The transportation of persons is commerce within the meaning of the Commerce Clause, and a state may not isolate itself from national problems by restraining the transportation of persons across its borders. The statute's express purpose and inevitable effect is to prohibit the movement of indigent persons across the California border, which is an immediate and impermissible burden on interstate commerce. The Court rejected the antiquated notion from prior dicta that states could exclude 'paupers' as a 'moral pestilence,' stating that 'poverty and immorality are not synonymous' and that indigence alone is not a valid basis for a state to exercise its police power to obstruct interstate travel.
Concurring - Justice Douglas
Yes, but the decision should rest on the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Commerce Clause. The right of persons to move freely from state to state is a fundamental right of national citizenship that is more protected than the movement of commercial goods. This right was recognized in cases like Crandall v. Nevada before the Fourteenth Amendment and is protected by it. To allow a state to curtail this fundamental right based on a citizen's poverty would create a caste system and contravene the principles of national unity and equality.
Concurring - Justice Jackson
Yes, but treating the migration of a human being as 'commerce' risks 'denaturing human rights.' The correct basis for the decision is the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to enter any state and establish residence is a core privilege of U.S. citizenship. A person's 'mere property status' is constitutionally irrelevant, like race or creed, and cannot be used by a state to limit the rights of a U.S. citizen. Citizenship confers not only obligations, such as military service, but also the reciprocal right to migrate to any part of the nation one must defend.
Analysis:
This decision invalidated 'anti-Okie' laws enacted by states like California to prevent the influx of poor migrants during the Great Depression. The ruling firmly establishes that states cannot erect economic barriers to interstate migration, thereby protecting the free movement of persons between states. While the majority's reliance on the Commerce Clause was a narrow ground, the influential concurring opinions by Justices Douglas and Jackson championed a more robust, rights-based rationale under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, foreshadowing the modern jurisprudence of a fundamental 'right to travel.' The case is significant for rejecting the archaic view of poverty as a quasi-criminal status that could justify the denial of constitutional rights.
Unlock the full brief for Edwards v. California