Truax v. Raich

Last updated
Truax v. Raich (1915)
Court United States Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 1, 1915
Citation(s) 239 US 33 (1915)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Louis D. Brandeis
William Rufus Day
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Charles E. Hughes
Joseph McKenna
Mahlon Pitney
Willis Van Devanter
Edward D. White
James C. McReynolds
Keywords
Equal Protection Clause
Immigration Law
Right to work

Truax v Raich 239 US 33 (1915) was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning U.S. labor laws, the right to work, Immigration law, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Contents

Statute

In 1914, the state of Arizona adopted a new provision to Art. IV, § 1 to the Arizona State Constitution. The provision entitled, “An act to protect the citizens of the United States in their employment against noncitizens of the United States, in Arizona, and to provide penalties and punishment for the violation thereof,” [1] instated a quota system for employers within Arizona. SEC. 1 of this provision required employers with more than five workers at any given time ensure a minimum of 80% of their employers be native-born American citizens. SEC. 2 provided that a violation of this act would result in a $100 fine and thirty days of imprisonment levied against the employer and SEC. 3 said that a $100 fine and thirty days of imprisonment would be imposed upon any non-citizen or immigrant that lies about their place of birth or citizenship to a potential employer. [1] [2]

This provision was introduced under the assumption that "the employment of aliens unless restrained was a peril to the public welfare." [1]

Facts

Mike Raich was an Austrian citizen who immigrated to the United States and settled in Arizona. He was employed by William Truax Sr., at a local bakery in Bisbee, Arizona, and began work at that establishment before the 1914 law was ratified and imposed. Upon imposition, Raich was informed by Truax that his employment would be terminated, “solely by reason of [the law’s] requirements and because of the fear of the penalties that would be incurred in case of its violation." [2]

On December 15, 1914, Raich filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, arguing that the imposition of the 80% native-born employee requirement denied him the right to work and equal protection under the law, therefore violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. [1]

After Raich’s filing, the defendants of the case (William Truax Sr., the Arizona attorney general Wiley E. Jones, and the Cochise County attorney W. G. Gilmore) joined in a motion to dismiss the case over the following grounds:

This motion of dismissal was heard and then denied by three judges before being taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. While typically civil and criminal court cases and heard and dealt with differently, it was said that “a court of equity... may, when such action is essential to the safeguarding of property -rights, restrain criminal prosecutions under unconstitutional statutes”. [1]

Judgment

The Court held, in a vote of 8 to 1, that Arizona was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [3] Justice Charles Evans Hughes delivered the majority opinion on Truax, stating the “right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure.” [3]  

The ruling drew precedent from previous cases of similar theme. The 1886 Supreme Court saw the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins , an earlier suit concerning immigrants and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court decided in favor of Yick Wo and Wo Lee’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause, and Justice Stanley Matthews’ opinion stated, “'These provisions, are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.’” [4]

In Truax v. Raich, the 1915 Court held that:  

Justice James Clark McReynolds offered a single dissenting opinion to the Truax decision. He viewed the lawsuit as “a suit against a state, to which the 11th Amendment declares 'the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend.'” [1] [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

A Congressional power of enforcement is included in a number of amendments to the United States Constitution. The language "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" is used, with slight variations, in Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI. The variations in the pertinent language are as follows: The Thirteenth Amendment leaves out the word "the", the Fourteenth Amendment states "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." In addition to the amendments above, the Eighteenth Amendment states "The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Lochner era was a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court's own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies". The court did this by using its interpretation of substantive due process to strike down laws held to be infringing on economic liberty or private contract rights. The era takes its name from a 1905 case, Lochner v. New York. The beginning of the era is usually marked earlier, with the Court's decision in Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), and its end marked forty years later in the case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), which overturned an earlier Lochner-era decision.

Oyama v. State of California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948) was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that specific provisions of the 1913 and 1920 California Alien Land Laws abridged the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to Fred Oyama, a U.S. citizen in whose name his father, a Japanese citizen, had purchased land. In doing so, however, the court did not overturn the California Alien Land Laws as unconstitutional.

<i>Plyler v. Doe</i> 1982 United States Supreme Court case

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and an independent school district's attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding. The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest.

Murray v. Pearson was a Maryland Court of Appeals decision which found "the state has undertaken the function of education in the law, but has omitted students of one race from the only adequate provision made for it, and omitted them solely because of their color." On January 15, 1936, the court affirmed the lower court ruling which ordered the university to immediately integrate its student population, and therefore created a legal precedent making segregation in Maryland illegal.

Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was "narrowly targeted" at "sex-based overgeneralization" and was thus a "valid exercise of [congressional] power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (1964), provided an opportunity for the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether racial discrimination in the provision of public accommodations by a privately owned restaurant violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, due to a supervening change in the state law, the Court vacated the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals and remanded the case to allow that court to determine whether the convictions for criminal trespass of twelve African American students should be dismissed.

Takahashi v. Fish and Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948), was a test case brought by Japanese-American fishermen before the United States Supreme Court to challenge California state legislation aimed at preventing them from returning to fishing occupations they worked in before their mass removal and internment during World War II. The issue at hand was a restrictive law in California requiring American citizenship to get a fishing license. A 1945 amendment to the state code barred "aliens ineligible to citizenship" from obtaining fishing licenses. The Court held that this was an unreasonable restriction and was discriminatory to residents of Japanese ancestry.

Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that state restrictions on welfare benefits for legal aliens but not for citizens violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court invalidated an Arizona law that required citizenship or 15 years of residence to receive welfare benefits. The 9–0 decision was written by Harry A. Blackmun.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens.

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Massachusetts law setting a mandatory retirement age of 50 for police officers was Constitutionally permissible.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.

Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of Sections 101(b)(1)(D) and 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Sections gave immigration preference to children or parents of either existing U.S. citizens or of noncitizens residing under lawful permanent resident status. But, as the Court wrote, the statute defined “child” narrowly: “an unmarried person under 21 years of age who is a legitimate or legitimated child, a stepchild, an adopted child, or an illegitimate child seeking preference by virtue of his relationship with his mother”.

Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923), decided by U.S. Supreme Court on November 12, 1923, was a case challenging Washington Alien Land Law that is preventing aliens purchasing, using, or leasing the land. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of state that Due Process and Equal Protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment and the treaty between the United States and Japan are not conflicted.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 "Truax v Raich [1915] USSC 229; 239 U.S. 33; 36 S.Ct. 7; 60 L.Ed. 131; No. 361 (1 November 1915)". www.worldlii.org. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
  3. 1 2 Sanz (2022-11-10). "Truax v. Raich". WikiSummaries. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
  4. ↑ "Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2023-09-26.
  5. ↑ Parker, Kunal (2015). Making Foreigners: Immigration and Citizenship Law in AMerica, 1600-2000. Cambridge University Press. p. 161. ISBN   9781139343282.
  6. ↑ "Truax v Raich [1915] USSC 229; 239 U.S. 33; 36 S.Ct. 7; 60 L.Ed. 131; No. 361 (1 November 1915)". www.worldlii.org. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.