Crane v. New York
Headline: Court upholds state law banning contractors from employing non‑U.S. citizens on city public works, affirms a contractor’s conviction, and rejects treaty and constitutional challenges, allowing local prosecutions to proceed.
Holding:
- Affirms that states can criminally punish contractors who hire non‑citizens on city public works.
- Allows fines or short jail terms for violations of state hiring rules on municipal projects.
- Limits use of treaty and constitutional defenses in similar employment prosecutions.
Summary
Background
A contractor working on city public works construction of catch or sewer basins was charged under a New York Labor Law criminal provision for employing three people who were not then citizens of the United States. One worker was shown to be a subject of the King of Italy; the nationalities of the others were not proved. The contractor argued the statute was unconstitutional and conflicted with treaties with foreign countries; those treaties were put into evidence over objection. The trial court convicted the contractor and fined him $50 or ten days in jail for nonpayment.
Reasoning
The Court considered the same legal questions raised in a companion case and reviewed the contractor’s claims based on treaties and the Fourteenth Amendment. It found the contractor’s specifications of error “untenable,” rejected the treaty and constitutional defenses presented, and concluded that treating aliens and citizens differently in this law did not unlawfully violate principles of classification. For those reasons the Court affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by the lower court.
Real world impact
The decision confirms that a state may criminally enforce a rule forbidding contractors on municipal public works from employing non‑citizens, and that treaty or the constitutional arguments advanced in this case did not prevent prosecution. Contractors on city projects, municipal governments, and non‑citizen workers involved in such contracts are the most directly affected parties by this ruling.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?