Hicklin v. Orbeck
Facts
Alaska enacted "Alaska Hire," requiring state oil and gas leases, easements, pipeline rights-of-way permits, unitization agreements, and renegotiations to include a preference for qualified Alaska residents. In 1975 and 1976, the State began issuing residency cards and directed unions to dispatch all qualified Alaska residents before any nonresidents for pipeline jobs, preventing appellants from obtaining pipeline-related work. Alaska justified the law as a response to its high unemployment. The Act applied broadly to employment resulting from covered oil and gas arrangements, including work performed for contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers inside the State.
Issue
Does Alaska's across-the-board employment preference for Alaska residents in jobs connected to state oil and gas development violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2? Does the State's ownership of oil and gas resources justify that discrimination against nonresidents?
Rule
Under the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, a State may not discriminate against citizens of other States in pursuing employment or a common calling unless there is a substantial reason for the discrimination beyond their noncitizenship, including something indicating that noncitizens are a peculiar source of the evil addressed, and the discrimination bears a substantial or reasonable relationship to that evil. A State's ownership of property or natural resources is a factor in the analysis, but it does not automatically remove discriminatory legislation from the Clause's reach.
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
Test yourself
A rejected applicant from Oregon challenges the law under Article IV. Which is the strongest argument that the law is unconstitutional?