Difference between revisions of "Toomer v. Witsell (1948)"
m (Admin moved page Toomer v. Witsell to Toomer v. Witsell (1948)) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Toomer v. Witsell'' (1948), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated South Carolina’s policy of requiring state residents to pay a $25 per boat license fee for shrimp gathering while nonresidents were charged $2,500 per boat as violative of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which assures that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states.” Traditionally, courts had held that the privileges and immunities that are protected by this clause are only those that are “fundamental,” so that the test always involved an inquiry into whether the discrimination against nonresidents involved a fundamental right. In ''Toomer'', however, the Court added a new dimension to the test, inquiring whether the discrimination bears a substantial relationship to the problem that the state is attempting to deal with. | + | In ''Toomer v. Witsell'' (1948), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] invalidated South Carolina’s policy of requiring state residents to pay a $25 per boat license fee for shrimp gathering while nonresidents were charged $2,500 per boat as violative of the [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV|Privileges and Immunities Clause]] of Article IV of the [[U.S. Constitution]], which assures that “the [[Citizenship|Citizens]] of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states.” Traditionally, courts had held that the privileges and immunities that are protected by this clause are only those that are “fundamental,” so that the test always involved an inquiry into whether the discrimination against nonresidents involved a fundamental right. In ''Toomer'', however, the Court added a new dimension to the test, inquiring whether the discrimination bears a substantial relationship to the problem that the state is attempting to deal with. |
==== Ellis Katz ==== | ==== Ellis Katz ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Last Updated: 2006 | ||
SEE ALSO: [[Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission]]; [[Corfield v. Coryell]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]] | SEE ALSO: [[Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission]]; [[Corfield v. Coryell]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]] | ||
[[Category:Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:48, 21 October 2019
In Toomer v. Witsell (1948), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated South Carolina’s policy of requiring state residents to pay a $25 per boat license fee for shrimp gathering while nonresidents were charged $2,500 per boat as violative of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, which assures that “the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states.” Traditionally, courts had held that the privileges and immunities that are protected by this clause are only those that are “fundamental,” so that the test always involved an inquiry into whether the discrimination against nonresidents involved a fundamental right. In Toomer, however, the Court added a new dimension to the test, inquiring whether the discrimination bears a substantial relationship to the problem that the state is attempting to deal with.
Ellis Katz
Last Updated: 2006
SEE ALSO: Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission; Corfield v. Coryell; Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV