Hicklin v. Orbeck

Background

A group of nonresident workers challenged an Alaska law called "Alaska Hire" that required employers connected to state oil and gas leases and projects to prefer Alaska residents for jobs. The law used resident cards to verify who qualified. When the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was being built, the State enforced the rule through union dispatch, and several nonresidents were prevented from getting pipeline work. Alaska’s trial court upheld the law, the Alaska Supreme Court struck down the one-year residency rule but upheld the general resident preference, and the nonresidents appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the law unlawfully treated citizens of other states worse than Alaska residents. The Court applied past decisions that bar discrimination against nonresidents unless the State shows a substantial, special reason tied closely to the problem. The Court found Alaska did not show nonresidents were a peculiar source of the unemployment problem, and the law was not narrowly focused. Alaska Hire gave an across-the-board preference to all residents, reached many employers who had no real state ownership connection, and extended to suppliers and refinery jobs. The Court also said state ownership of resources alone does not justify such broad discrimination. For these reasons, the Court held the resident-preference portion of the law unconstitutional and reversed the Alaska Supreme Court’s judgment on that point.

Real world impact

The ruling removes a statewide rule that had forced many employers tied to oil and gas activity to favor Alaska residents, restoring employment access for nonresident workers on pipeline and related projects. The Court did not need to decide the Equal Protection challenge because it resolved the case under the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment for citizens of different states.