Constitutional Law—The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV: Fundamental Rights Revived—Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)

In Montana, nonresident sportsmen wishing to hunt solely for elk must purchase a big game combination license, though residents may acquire a separate elk license. In addition, Montana imposes substantially higher license fees on nonresidents, effectively requiring them to pay 28.2 times more than residents for the privilege of hunting elk. Plaintiffs challenged Montana\u27s elk-hunting license fee scheme, charging that it discriminated against nonresident elk hunters in violation of the privileges and immunities clause of article IV, section 2 of the Constitution. A divided three-judge district court denied plaintiffs\u27 demand for declaratory and other relief. In Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission, the United States Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the scope of the privileges and immunities clause extends only to fundamental rights of citizenship and that equal access to Montana elk by nonresident hunters is not a fundamental privilege protected by the clause. Montana\u27s licensing scheme, therefore, withstood the challenge

McBurney v. Young: Testing the Limits of Citizens-Only Freedom of Information Laws

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, McBurney v. Young, in which the Court will decide whether the citizens-only provision of Virginia\u27s Freedom of Information Act violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the dormant Commmerce Clause

Domicile Preferences in Employment: The Case of Alaska Hire

Background. Regional variations in mortality and morbidity have been shown in Europe and USA. Longitudinal studies have found increased mortality, dissimilarities in mortality pattern, and differences in utilization of healthcare between foreign- and native-born Swedes. No study has been found comparing mortality among foreign-born and native-born Swedes in relation to catchment areas/counties. Methods. The aim was to describe and compare mortality among foreign-born persons and native Swedes during 1970–1999 in 24 counties in Sweden. Data from the Statistics Sweden and the National Board of Health and Welfare was used, and the database consisted of 723,948 persons, 361,974 foreign-born living in Sweden in 1970 and aged 16 years and above and 361,974 matched Swedish controls. Results. Latest county of residence independently explained higher mortality among foreign-born persons in all but four counties; OR varied from 1.01 to 1.29. Counties with a more rural structure showed the highest differences between foreign-born persons and native controls. Foreign-born persons had a lower mean age (1.0–4.3 years) at time of death. Conclusion. County of residence influences mortality; higher mortality is indicated among migrants than native Swedes in counties with a more rural structure. Further studies are needed to explore possible explanations

Commerce Clause; Privileges and Immunities Clause; State Hiring; Discrimination Against Nonresidents; Hicklin v. Orbeck

In Hicklin v. Orbeck, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held\u27 that Alaska\u27s statute entitled Local Hire Under State Leases \u27 violates the Constitution due to its discriminatory effect on nonresidents. Basing its decision on the Privileges and Immunities Clause,\u27 the Court found that there was insufficient justification for the extensive discrimination against nonresidents required by the Act because the unemployment problem to be alleviated by the legislation was not due to a great influx of nonresident jobseekers. Rather, the Court attributed the problem to the fact that a large percentage of the unemployed in Alaska lack sufficient education and job training to obtain employment or live too far from employment opportunities

Constitutional Law—State Sovereign Immunity—Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979)

The doctrine of state sovereign immunity in the courts of another state and the federal courts will be examined in section I of this casenote. In section II, the Court\u27s reasoning in Nevada v. Hall will be discussed. The Court\u27s conclusion that the Constitution places no limit on a state court\u27s jurisdiction over a sister state will be challenged in part A of section III. The ambiguities in the Hall opinion that render the scope of a state court\u27s jurisdiction uncertain and the desirability of limiting that jurisdiction will be examined in part B of section III. Finally, this note will suggest how the Court might limit a state court\u27s jurisdiction over a sister state in future cases in a manner consistent with Hall