Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Crandall v. Nevada

Supreme Court of the United States · 1868 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawright of interstate travelstate taxationfederal structureinterstate travelstate capitation taxfederal supremacyimplied constitutional limitations

Facts

Nevada enacted a statute levying and collecting a capitation tax on every person leaving the state by railroad or stage coach. The statute treated railroad agents and stage proprietors as responsible for collecting the tax, but the Court read the burden as falling on the passenger. The tax applied both to persons residing in Nevada who wished to leave and to persons not residing there who merely had occasion to pass through. The case presented whether a state may impose such a charge on travel through or out of its territory by the usual modes of public transportation.

Issue

May a state constitutionally impose a tax on persons for the privilege of leaving the state or passing through it by railroad or stage coach? More specifically, does such a tax unconstitutionally burden rights of national citizenship and impede the operations of the federal government?

Rule

A state cannot impose a tax on the privilege of leaving the state or passing through it by ordinary public conveyance when the tax burdens the right of citizens to move through the Union to reach the seat and instrumentalities of the national government and when it would permit the state to obstruct or embarrass federal functions. The invalidity rests not on any single express constitutional clause alone, but on the structure of the Union and the supremacy of the national government and the rights of citizens under it.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon enacts a statute requiring every bus company operating between Portland and Boise to remit $3 for each passenger it transports out of Oregon. The statute states that the amount is imposed on "each person departing the State by common passenger coach," and makes the bus company liable only for collection.

If challenged, how should a court most likely characterize the exaction under the majority's reasoning?

Explanation. The majority looked to the substance and language of the statute. When a law imposes a fixed charge on each person leaving or passing through the state by ordinary public conveyance and merely uses the carrier as the collection mechanism, it is treated as a tax on the passenger, not on the carrier's business. That characterization triggers the constitutional problem because the state is taxing the privilege of movement through the Union.