United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Camden

465 U.S. 208 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The City of Camden (D) adopted an ordinance which required that at least 40% of the contractors and subcontractors working on city construction projects be Camden residents. The United Building & Construction Trades Council (P) challenged the ordinance, claiming that it discriminated against non-city residents, and therefore violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The state treasurer approved the ordinance, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld it, holding that the Privileges and Immunities Clause did not apply to discrimination on the basis of municipal residence. The discrimination affected both New Jersey residents outside Camden and out-of-state residents, and since no discrimination based on state residence was made by the ordinance, it did not come under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. P appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Since P filed its appeal, the Court decided White v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, Inc. which held that an executive order of the Mayor of Boston, requiring that at least 50% of all jobs on construction projects funded in whole or in part by city funds be filled by bona fide city residents, was immune from scrutiny under the Commerce Clause because Boston was acting as a market participant, rather than as a market regulator. In light of the decision, P has abandoned its Commerce Clause challenge to the Camden ordinance. D also amended its affirmative action plan. The 1-year residency requirement was deleted, thereby mooting P's equal protection challenge based on that durational requirement. Now, a resident of the city of Camden is defined simply as 'any person who resides in the City of Camden.' Also, the scope of the ordinance was clarified. It now applies to any construction project 'which is funded in whole or in part with City funds or funds which the City expends or administers in accordance with the terms of a grant.' Finally, the 40% resident-hiring requirement was changed from a strict 'quota' to a 'goal' with which developers and contractors must make 'every good faith effort' to comply. Because of these changes, the only question left for consideration is whether the Camden ordinance, as now written, violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.