Truax v. Raich
239 U.S. 33 (1915)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that denies lawfully admitted aliens the opportunity to work in the common occupations of the community by requiring employers to hire a specific, high percentage of U.S. citizens violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Arizona enacted a law requiring any employer with more than five employees to maintain a workforce comprised of at least 80% qualified electors or native-born U.S. citizens.
- Mike Raich, a native of Austria and a lawfully admitted alien, was employed as a cook by William Truax, Sr., in his restaurant.
- Truax employed nine workers, seven of whom, including Raich, were neither native-born citizens nor qualified electors.
- Following the law's passage, Truax informed Raich that he would be discharged solely to comply with the statute's requirements and avoid the prescribed penalties.
Procedural Posture:
- Mike Raich filed a bill in the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona against his employer, William Truax, the Arizona Attorney General, and a County Attorney.
- Raich sought a decree declaring the Arizona employment law unconstitutional and an injunction to restrain its enforcement.
- The district judge granted a temporary restraining order to prevent Raich's imminent discharge.
- The defendants joined in a motion to dismiss the case.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court denied the motion to dismiss and granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the state officials from enforcing the act against Truax.
- The defendants (Truax and the state officials) then brought a direct appeal 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 an Arizona law requiring employers of more than five workers to ensure that at least 80% of their employees are qualified electors or native-born U.S. citizens violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Hughes
Yes, the Arizona law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws extends to all persons within a state's jurisdiction, including lawfully admitted aliens. The right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is a fundamental aspect of the personal freedom and opportunity that the Amendment was designed to secure. Denying this right based merely on alienage amounts to forbidden discrimination. While a state may regulate its own common property or resources, this police power does not extend to denying lawful inhabitants the ability to earn a livelihood in ordinary private enterprises. Furthermore, the state law infringes upon the exclusive federal power to control immigration, as denying aliens the ability to work is tantamount to denying them the right to enter and reside in the country.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice McReynolds
No, the suit should not be allowed, but the law is invalid. The dissent agrees that the Arizona act is invalid. However, the dissent argues that the suit is one against a state, which is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The doctrine from Ex parte Young, which allows federal courts to enjoin state officials from enforcing unconstitutional state laws, should be overruled. The plain language of the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits federal courts from hearing suits against states, should be given effect without being 'refined away'.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision establishing that the Equal Protection Clause protects the right of lawfully present non-citizens to engage in private employment. It significantly limits the scope of a state's police power, drawing a clear distinction between permissible regulation of public resources and impermissible discrimination in the general economic life of the community. By linking the right to work with the federal government's exclusive power over immigration, the Court established that states cannot indirectly undermine federal immigration policy by making it impossible for lawfully admitted aliens to support themselves. This precedent has been crucial in striking down subsequent state and local laws that discriminate against aliens in employment and licensing.
