Hicklin v. Orbeck
437 U.S. 518 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law granting an absolute hiring preference to its own residents for jobs in the private sector violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV if the state cannot demonstrate that non-residents are a peculiar source of the evil the law addresses and that the discrimination is substantially related to solving that problem.
Facts:
- In 1972, the Alaska Legislature passed the 'Alaska Hire' Act to address the state's high unemployment rate.
- The Act required all state oil and gas leases and related permits to include a provision mandating that qualified Alaska residents be hired in preference to non-residents.
- Enforcement of the Act ramped up in 1975 during the peak construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
- In March 1976, Alaska's Commissioner of Labor, Edmund Orbeck, ordered all unions supplying pipeline workers to dispatch all qualified Alaska residents before dispatching any non-residents.
- The appellants, who were non-residents of Alaska, were subsequently prevented from obtaining pipeline-related work for which they were qualified, with some having previously worked on the pipeline.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants, a group of non-resident workers, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Alaska seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Alaska Hire Act.
- The Superior Court (trial court) upheld the Act in its entirety and denied the appellants' request for relief.
- Appellants appealed this decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.
- The Alaska Supreme Court found the Act's one-year durational residency requirement unconstitutional but upheld the general hiring preference for Alaska residents.
- Appellants appealed the portion of the Alaska Supreme Court's judgment that upheld the general hiring preference to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 the Alaska Hire Act, which requires employers in the oil and gas industry to grant an absolute hiring preference to Alaska residents, violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes, the Alaska Hire Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The Clause establishes a norm of comity among states, protecting the right of a citizen of one state to pursue a common calling in another state without discriminatory restrictions. The Court applied a two-part test from Toomer v. Witsell: first, the state must show that non-citizens constitute a peculiar source of the evil the statute is aimed at, and second, the discrimination must bear a substantial relationship to the problem. Alaska failed to show that non-resident workers were the particular cause of its high unemployment; evidence suggested the cause was a lack of training and geographic isolation among its own residents. Furthermore, the Act's flat preference for all residents, regardless of skill or employment status, was not closely tailored to aid the state's unemployed. The Court also rejected Alaska's argument that its ownership of the oil and gas resources justified the discrimination, finding the law's reach far too broad, extending to subcontractors and suppliers with only an attenuated connection to the state's property.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits a state's ability to favor its own residents in private employment, even when state-owned natural resources are involved. It solidifies the two-part test from Toomer v. Witsell as the controlling standard for Privileges and Immunities Clause challenges to economic discrimination. By rejecting the state's ownership interest as an absolute justification, the Court prevents states from using resource control to create protectionist barriers that undermine the national economic union envisioned by the Constitution. The case serves as a strong precedent against state laws that attempt to hoard employment opportunities for their own citizens at the expense of non-residents.
Unlock the full brief for Hicklin v. Orbeck