United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden

E15221

United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a city’s local-hiring ordinance could be challenged under the Privileges and Immunities Clause for discriminating against out-of-state workers.

AI illustration

How this image was made

AI-generated illustration of United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden

This AI-generated illustration was produced by black-forest-labs/FLUX.2-dev (1024x1024) from a prompt written by openai/gpt-oss-120b from the entity's label + description.

Prompt

Generate an image of United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden (United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a city’s local-hiring ordinance could be challenged under the Privileges and Immunities Clause for discriminating against out-of-state workers.)

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (41)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
court case ⓘ
areaOfLaw constitutional law ⓘ
federalism ⓘ
labor and employment law ⓘ
citation 465 U.S. 208 ⓘ
cityInvolved Camden ⓘ
constitutionalClauseInterpreted Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ
constitutionalProvision Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 1984-03-27 ⓘ
decisionYear 1984 ⓘ
effectOnLaw limited the ability of local governments to favor residents over nonresidents in employment on public projects when out-of-state citizens are affected. ⓘ
employmentContext construction industry ⓘ
holding A municipal ordinance favoring city residents in employment on city construction projects is subject to scrutiny under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV when it burdens out-of-state citizens. ⓘ
The fact that discrimination is based on municipal, rather than state, residency does not remove it from the scope of the Privileges and Immunities Clause when out-of-state citizens are adversely affected. ⓘ
jurisdiction United States ⓘ
legalIssue Article IV Privileges and Immunities ⓘ
Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ
discrimination against out-of-state workers ⓘ
local hiring ordinance ⓘ
location Camden, New Jersey ⓘ
linked to: Camden
ordinanceType local hiring preference ordinance ⓘ
page 208 ⓘ
partyTypePetitioner labor union ⓘ
partyTypeRespondent municipal government ⓘ
petitioner United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity ⓘ
relatedCase Hicklin v. Orbeck ⓘ
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper ⓘ
Toomer v. Witsell ⓘ
relatedConcept interstate mobility of workers ⓘ
right to pursue a common calling ⓘ
relevance clarified that municipal ordinances can be challenged under the Privileges and Immunities Clause when they burden out-of-state citizens. ⓘ
important precedent on the limits of local hiring preferences. ⓘ
reporter United States Reports ⓘ
respondent Mayor and Council of the City of Camden ⓘ
stateInvolved New Jersey ⓘ
subjectMatter municipal residency requirements for employment ⓘ
public works construction projects ⓘ
typeOfDiscriminationAlleged economic protectionism ⓘ
volume 465 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (3)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Privileges and Immunities Clause → keyCase → United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden ⓘ
United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden → petitioner → United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity ⓘ
linked to: United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden
Hicklin v. Orbeck → relatedCase → United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden ⓘ