United Building & Constr. Trades Council of Camden Cty. v. Mayor and Council of Camden

1984-02-21

Headline: Court applies the Privileges and Immunities Clause to Camden’s 40% local-hire goal, reverses the state court’s ruling, and sends the case back for factual review of whether it harms out-of-state workers.

Holding: The Court held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to municipal resident-hiring preferences, reversed New Jersey’s decision, and remanded for factual findings on whether Camden’s 40% goal unlawfully burdens out-of-state residents.

Real World Impact:

Lets out-of-state workers challenge local resident-hiring goals in court.
Requires factual proof before upholding municipal hiring preferences.
Means state approval alone may not shield local hiring rules.

Topics: local hiring rules, residency preferences, public works jobs, interstate rights

Summary

Background

A city ordinance in Camden, New Jersey, requires that at least 40% of workers on city-funded construction projects be Camden residents. The United Building and Construction Trades Council, a group of unions (with some members from outside New Jersey), challenged the state approval of the resident-hiring plan as violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. New Jersey’s highest court had refused to apply that Clause because the rule discriminated on municipal, not state, residency; the City also removed the earlier one-year residency rule and softened the quota into a 40% hiring “goal.”

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether the Privileges and Immunities Clause reaches municipal residency preferences. The majority said yes: a city is a state subdivision, and conditioning hiring on municipal residence can exclude out-of-state citizens from a basic opportunity to pursue work. The Court explained that employment on public works can implicate rights protected by the Clause, but that such local measures may still be justified if there is a substantial reason and close tailoring. Because no trial or factual findings were made about Camden’s economic claims, the Court reversed New Jersey’s decision and remanded for proper fact-finding and application of the Clause.

Real world impact

The ruling means courts — not just state administrative approvals — must review local hiring preferences under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. It allows out-of-state workers to challenge municipal resident-hiring goals, but it does not finally ban such rules; Camden and similar cities may still justify them with factual evidence. The case was sent back so judges can decide whether Camden’s specific goals survive constitutional scrutiny.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun dissented, arguing the Clause should not reach municipal-residency distinctions and that state political processes can correct local protectionism; he would have affirmed the New Jersey court.