Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Crane v. New York
Crane v. N.Y., 239 U.S. 195 (1915)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1915-11-29
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- upholding statute criminalizing the employment of aliens on public works contracts
- that the government satisfied the economic needs of its citizens by restricting distribution of its resources to its citizens
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Crane v. New York. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 97 opinions
Headnotes
- Constitutional Law — Equal Protection A state statute governing the employment of laborers that otherwise is valid does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment merely because it draws distinctions between aliens and citizens, as there is a basis for such a classification. 239 U.S. 195 (citing Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175)
- Constitutional Law — Treaties — Employment of Aliens on Public Works A treaty between the United States and a foreign nation granting subjects of that nation an equal right with citizens to labor on public works is not materially distinguishable from other such treaties and does not render invalid a state labor law restricting employment on public works to citizens, where the same contentions were considered and rejected as untenable. 239 U.S. 195
CRANEv. NEW YORK,239 U.S. 195(1915)
36 S.Ct. 85
CRANEv. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
ERROR TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS, FIRST DISTRICT, CITY OF NEW YORK,
STATE OF NEW YORK.
No. 388.
Argued October 12, 1915.
Decided November 29, 1915.
THE facts, which involve the constitutionality of § 14 of the
Labor Law of New York, are stated in the opinion.
The conviction of plaintiff in error was erroneous because it was based upon a violation of § 14, c. 36, Laws of 1909 of New York, known as the Labor Law, which is void, as in conflict with § 1 of theFourteenthAmendment; also because it abridges the privileges and immunities of plaintiff in error, a citizen of the United States, and of his alien employes by depriving them of their right to contract for labor. The enactment of said law and enforcement of its provisions deprives plaintiff in error and his employes of liberty and property without due process of law and of the equal protection of the laws.
Section 14 is void, being in conflict with subd. 2, Art.VIof the United States Constitution providing that treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. Pursuant to said article treaties have been entered into by the United States with various nations including Italy, which treatiesPage 196were in effect at the time of the act complained of and at the time of such conviction, and which put aliens within the State of New York upon an equality with citizens of the State with respect to the right to labor upon public works, and Congress had pursuant to said section duly enacted a law (Rev. Stat., § 1977) granting to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens. Said treaties and said law nullified the provisions of said § 14 of the Labor Law.
TheFourteenthAmendment, eitherex proprio vigore, or by virtue of treaties entered into, and laws of Congress enacted, pursuant to the provisions of Article VI of the Constitution, has granted to resident aliens in the State of New York an equal right with citizens of that State to contract to labor upon the public works of the State, and chapter 14 of the Labor Law, being in contravention of that right, was and is unconstitutional and void, and the conviction of plaintiff in error for violation thereof was error, and should be set aside.
Authority for this law does not lie in the police power.
The distinction between citizens and aliens is insufficient to justify the act; nor is freedom to contract sufficient justification for the law.
Section 14 violates theFourteenthAmendment, reinforced as it is by § 1977, Rev. Stat., and also violates treaties duly entered into by the United States with foreign nations.
The contract agreement to comply with the law falls with the law itself.
The fact that the Legislature of the State of New York after the conviction of plaintiff in error amended § 14 of the Labor Law, does not militate against the rights of the plaintiff in error in this court.
The conviction of plaintiff in error should be reversedPage 197and the case remanded to the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York for appropriate action.
Numerous authorities of the Federal and state courts sustain these contentions.Mr. Robert S. Johnstone, with whomMr. Charles AlbertPerkins, District Attorney, andMr. George Z. Medalewere on the brief, for defendant in error.
The case was commenced by information which accused Crane, plaintiff in error, while engaged as a contractor with the city in the construction of a public work of such city, by virtue of a contract entered into with the city, of having employed three persons not then citizens of the United States.
The public work was the construction of catch or sewer basins.
The defense was the unconstitutionality of the law and that it was in violation of the treaties of the United States with foreign countries.
The treaties were put in evidence over the objection of the prosecuting officer and a motion was made to dismiss the information on the grounds above stated. The motion was denied, and plaintiff in error found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $50, or, in default thereof, to be committed to the city prison for the term of ten days.Page 198
The case was then appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and there heard withHeimv.McCall, ante, p. 175.
The judgment was reversed. This action was not sustained by the Court of Appeals. In that court and in the Appellate Division the cases were heard together and decided by the same opinions, they being rendered in the present case and the judgment of the trial court (Special Term) affirmed.214 N.Y. 154.
It appeared from the testimony that one of the laborers employed was a subject of the King of Italy (the nationality of the others was not shown), and a treaty between the United States and that country, signed February 25, 1913, was received in evidence over the objection of the district attorney on the ground that "none of the parties to the proceeding is a subject of the King of Italy." Treaties with other countries were also received in evidence. To them the district attorney objected on the ground that none of the parties to the proceedings and "nobody who was connected in any way with the subject-matter of the contract or employed in the performance of the work" was "a subject or citizen of any of the countries referred to."
The provisions of the treaty with Italy are set out in the opinion in theHeim Caseand the provisions of the other treaties are not, so far as their application is concerned, materially different.
The contentions of plaintiff in error are based on the treaties and on theFourteenthAmendment of the Constitution of the United States. The specifications of error are the same, though varying in expression, as those in theHeim Case, and there considered and declared untenable. There is added the view that a distinction made between aliens and citizens violates the principle of classification. We think this view is also without foundation.Judgment affirmed.Page 199