Crandall v. Nevada
The Court struck down a Nevada law that taxed every person leaving the state by train or stagecoach, ruling that states cannot charge people simply for traveling to or through them.
The decision rests on the idea that people are citizens of one united nation, entitled to move freely to reach the federal government's offices, courts, and services, and that a state toll on travel would let states choke off that freedom of movement.
“But if the State can tax a railroad passenger one dollar, it can tax him one thousand dollars.”
Illustrating the danger of letting any state tax people for traveling out of it.
How it got here: A stagecoach agent was convicted in Nevada courts for failing to collect the state's passenger tax; the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the law, and the case came to the U.S. Supreme Court on writ of error.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Nevada passed a law requiring railroad companies and stagecoach operators to collect a per-person tax from every passenger leaving the state and turn the money over to the state. A stagecoach company agent was prosecuted in Nevada courts for failing to collect and pay this tax. The case asked whether a state could lawfully charge people money just for exiting its borders by common modes of travel.
The question before the Court
Could Nevada charge a tax on every person leaving the state by railroad or stagecoach?
Why it matters
The ruling means states cannot impose fees or taxes on people simply for leaving or passing through their territory. This protects the practical ability of ordinary Americans to travel for business, government matters, or personal reasons without being taxed at every state line, and it keeps a single state from being able to block national travel and commerce by taxing passengers.
What changes now
The Court reversed the Nevada Supreme Court's judgment and sent the case back with directions to discharge the plaintiff in error from custody, meaning he could no longer be punished for failing to collect the tax. The ruling permanently invalidated Nevada's travel tax and established a broader principle limiting any state's power to tax people for leaving or passing through it, a principle later relied on in travel-rights cases.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly declined to rest its decision on the Export Clause or the Commerce Clause, leaving those questions largely unresolved. It also did not decide whether Congress itself could impose a similar tax on travelers, noting only that no such federal law then existed.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence in part — Justice Clifford
Justice Clifford agreed the Nevada tax was unconstitutional but disagreed with the majority's reasoning based on national citizenship and free access to the federal government. He would have decided the case solely on the ground that the tax was an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, which he believed states could never impose regardless of congressional action.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first determined what the Nevada statute actually did: despite the state's argument that it taxed the carrier's business, the law's language showed it was a tax on the passenger himself, with the railroad and stagecoach operators merely acting as collectors.
- The Court considered whether the tax violated the Export-Import Clause or the Commerce Clause, the two provisions the lower court had relied on, but found neither a clean fit: a traveling citizen is not obviously an 'export,' and existing cases left the Commerce Clause question unsettled without a federal law on point to conflict with.
- Rather than resting on either clause, the Court reasoned that the United States is one nation with a national government headquartered in one place, and that citizens must be able to travel freely to reach its capital, courts, land offices, ports, and other federal institutions to conduct business or seek services.
- The Court reasoned that this right of free access to the national government and its offices cannot depend on the permission of any state whose territory a citizen must cross, because letting states charge tolls on travel would let them obstruct or even defeat essential functions of the federal government, such as moving troops or mail.
- Drawing on precedents like McCulloch v. Maryland, which held that states cannot tax the instruments the federal government uses to exercise its powers, the Court concluded that a state tax on the mere act of leaving the state by common carrier is an unconstitutional burden on this national right of free movement.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheaton, 316)
Reaffirmed that states cannot tax the tools the federal government uses to carry out its powers.
Distinguishes The Passenger Cases (7 Howard, 283)
Distinguished Nevada's tax from the earlier state passenger taxes while reaching a similar unconstitutionality result.
Reaffirms Cooley v. Board of Wardens (12 Howard, 299)
Relied on its rule that states may regulate local matters like pilotage until Congress legislates otherwise.
Reaffirms Brown v. Maryland (12 Wheaton, 419)
Reaffirmed that a state law interfering with a federally derived right is unconstitutional.
Reaffirms Weston v. The City of Charleston (2 Peters, 449)
Reaffirmed that states cannot tax federal bonds because it could impair the government's ability to borrow.