Appellants
William Truax, Sr., Wiley E. Jones, W. G. Gilmore
Appellee
Mike Raich
Appellants' Claim
That a U.S. district court erred in preventing enforcement of Arizona's Anti-Alien Act.
Chief Lawyers for Appellants
Wiley E. Jones, Leslie C. Hardy, George W. Harben
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Alexander Britton, Evans Browne, Francis W. Clements
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis, William Rufus Day, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes (writing for the Court), Joseph McKenna, Mahlon Pitney, Willis Van Devanter, Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
James Clark McReynolds
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1 November 1915
Decision
Against the appellants, affirming the district court's injunction against enforcement of Arizona's law.
Significance
By declaring Arizona's law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court established the right to earn a living as a basic freedom not to be withheld from residentaliens.
The Anti-Alien Law
When Mike Raich was in danger of losing his job at the Bisbee, Arizona restaurant where he worked as a cook, it had nothing to do with his abilities as achef. The Austrian-born Raich was the victim of a 1914 Arizona law requiringall businesses with five or more employees to hire a work force that was at least 80 percent native-born American.
Arizona's Anti-Alien Employment Act first appeared before voters in a statewide public referendum. When the measure passed, Raich's boss, William Truax, warned the cook that keeping him on would mean $100 fines and 30 days in jailfor both of them. Truax told Raich that he could expect to be fired as soon as the act became law.
On 15 December 1914, the day after the act was signed into law, Raich filed asuit in Arizona's U.S. district court, charging that the act denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. Arizona Attorney General Wiley E. Jones, Cochise County Attorney W. G. Gilmore, and William Truax were named as defendants. Raich was not alone in his anger over the bill. Formal protests were lodged by the English and Italian embassies, whose governments sensed that the terms of the law represented an abrogation of international treaties. The Japanese government, whose citizens were the specific targets of xenophobic American laws, took its concerns to the U.S. State Department.
Raich's suit resulted in a temporary court order preventing Truax from dismissing the cook. When the county attorney's office learned that Truax was forbidden to fire Raich under the restraining order, Gilmore's office had Truax arrested for violating the Anti-Alien Act. The arrest appeared to be a legal formality, for Gilmore, Truax, and Jones joined in asking for a dismissal of Raich's suit against them. On 7 January 1915, however, a federal district courtin San Francisco ruled that Arizona's Anti-Alien Law was unconstitutional. The special three-judge tribunal made permanent the temporary restraining order against Raich's dismissal. Thus prevented from enforcing the Arizona law, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Right to Earn a Living
In presenting their case before the Court, the appellants did not bother disputing Raich's allegation that his Fourteenth Amendment rights had been infringed. Instead, they challenged the suit on other grounds. Raich, they claimed,had no right to sue the state of Arizona nor should his suit be allowed to prevent the enforcement of a criminal statute. It was also argued that the facts of the case did not constitute grounds for Raich to bring a civil lawsuit,a "suit in equity," in what was essentially a criminal matter.
When the Court delivered its decision on 1 November 1915, Justice Hughes' written opinion succinctly disposed of the appellants' claims. By naming Truax,Jones, and Gilmore as defendants, Justice Hughes pointed out that Raich had not sued the state of Arizona. Rather, the suit was directed at Jones and Gilmore as officers of a state attempting to interfere with Raich's employment through an unconstitutional law. As for the characterization of Raich's employment as a criminal matter and therefore inappropriate for consideration by "acourt of equity," Justice Hughes wrote that civil lawsuits were proper if they sought to prevent prosecutions under unconstitutional laws. Furthermore, the Court defined the right to earn a living as a property right, which was plainly an appropriate issue for consideration in such a suit.
Justice McReynolds dissented, commenting that the Eleventh Amendment prohibition against federal courts meddling in the enforcement of state criminal statutes should apply. To the majority of the Court, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was more applicable to the Raich controversy. Justice Hughes pointed out that the power to regulate immigration and the admittance of aliens to theUnited States was reserved for the federal government, not the states. In the1886 Yick Wo v. Hopkins decision, the Court had held that the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment extended equal protection of American laws to any foreigner who legally entered the United States. Local statutes could be enacted to protect the health, safety, morals, and welfare of state citizens. Such laws could not, however, interfere with the ordinary right to earn alivelihood.
"It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure," wrote Justice Hughes. "If this could be refused solely upon the basisof race or nationality the prohibition of the denial to any person of the equal protection of the laws would be a barren form of words."
Arizona's Anti-Alien Law was finished, but William Truax's problems with hisemployees were far from over. Only a year after the Raich decision, Truax sued his kitchen staff for joining a local Cooks & Waiters Union boycott, claiming they were wrecking his business by picketing his restaurant. The suit wound up before the Supreme Court as the 1921 Truax v. Corrigancase.
Related Cases
William Truax, Sr., Wiley E. Jones, W. G. Gilmore
Appellee
Mike Raich
Appellants' Claim
That a U.S. district court erred in preventing enforcement of Arizona's Anti-Alien Act.
Chief Lawyers for Appellants
Wiley E. Jones, Leslie C. Hardy, George W. Harben
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Alexander Britton, Evans Browne, Francis W. Clements
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis, William Rufus Day, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Charles Evans Hughes (writing for the Court), Joseph McKenna, Mahlon Pitney, Willis Van Devanter, Edward Douglass White
Justices Dissenting
James Clark McReynolds
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
1 November 1915
Decision
Against the appellants, affirming the district court's injunction against enforcement of Arizona's law.
Significance
By declaring Arizona's law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court established the right to earn a living as a basic freedom not to be withheld from residentaliens.
The Anti-Alien Law
When Mike Raich was in danger of losing his job at the Bisbee, Arizona restaurant where he worked as a cook, it had nothing to do with his abilities as achef. The Austrian-born Raich was the victim of a 1914 Arizona law requiringall businesses with five or more employees to hire a work force that was at least 80 percent native-born American.
Arizona's Anti-Alien Employment Act first appeared before voters in a statewide public referendum. When the measure passed, Raich's boss, William Truax, warned the cook that keeping him on would mean $100 fines and 30 days in jailfor both of them. Truax told Raich that he could expect to be fired as soon as the act became law.
On 15 December 1914, the day after the act was signed into law, Raich filed asuit in Arizona's U.S. district court, charging that the act denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. Arizona Attorney General Wiley E. Jones, Cochise County Attorney W. G. Gilmore, and William Truax were named as defendants. Raich was not alone in his anger over the bill. Formal protests were lodged by the English and Italian embassies, whose governments sensed that the terms of the law represented an abrogation of international treaties. The Japanese government, whose citizens were the specific targets of xenophobic American laws, took its concerns to the U.S. State Department.
Raich's suit resulted in a temporary court order preventing Truax from dismissing the cook. When the county attorney's office learned that Truax was forbidden to fire Raich under the restraining order, Gilmore's office had Truax arrested for violating the Anti-Alien Act. The arrest appeared to be a legal formality, for Gilmore, Truax, and Jones joined in asking for a dismissal of Raich's suit against them. On 7 January 1915, however, a federal district courtin San Francisco ruled that Arizona's Anti-Alien Law was unconstitutional. The special three-judge tribunal made permanent the temporary restraining order against Raich's dismissal. Thus prevented from enforcing the Arizona law, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Right to Earn a Living
In presenting their case before the Court, the appellants did not bother disputing Raich's allegation that his Fourteenth Amendment rights had been infringed. Instead, they challenged the suit on other grounds. Raich, they claimed,had no right to sue the state of Arizona nor should his suit be allowed to prevent the enforcement of a criminal statute. It was also argued that the facts of the case did not constitute grounds for Raich to bring a civil lawsuit,a "suit in equity," in what was essentially a criminal matter.
When the Court delivered its decision on 1 November 1915, Justice Hughes' written opinion succinctly disposed of the appellants' claims. By naming Truax,Jones, and Gilmore as defendants, Justice Hughes pointed out that Raich had not sued the state of Arizona. Rather, the suit was directed at Jones and Gilmore as officers of a state attempting to interfere with Raich's employment through an unconstitutional law. As for the characterization of Raich's employment as a criminal matter and therefore inappropriate for consideration by "acourt of equity," Justice Hughes wrote that civil lawsuits were proper if they sought to prevent prosecutions under unconstitutional laws. Furthermore, the Court defined the right to earn a living as a property right, which was plainly an appropriate issue for consideration in such a suit.
Justice McReynolds dissented, commenting that the Eleventh Amendment prohibition against federal courts meddling in the enforcement of state criminal statutes should apply. To the majority of the Court, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was more applicable to the Raich controversy. Justice Hughes pointed out that the power to regulate immigration and the admittance of aliens to theUnited States was reserved for the federal government, not the states. In the1886 Yick Wo v. Hopkins decision, the Court had held that the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment extended equal protection of American laws to any foreigner who legally entered the United States. Local statutes could be enacted to protect the health, safety, morals, and welfare of state citizens. Such laws could not, however, interfere with the ordinary right to earn alivelihood.
"It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure," wrote Justice Hughes. "If this could be refused solely upon the basisof race or nationality the prohibition of the denial to any person of the equal protection of the laws would be a barren form of words."
Arizona's Anti-Alien Law was finished, but William Truax's problems with hisemployees were far from over. Only a year after the Raich decision, Truax sued his kitchen staff for joining a local Cooks & Waiters Union boycott, claiming they were wrecking his business by picketing his restaurant. The suit wound up before the Supreme Court as the 1921 Truax v. Corrigancase.
Related Cases
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).
- Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921).
User Comments Add a comment…