Crane v. New York

A state statute regarding employment of laborers otherwise valid is not unconstitutional under the equal provision clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it makes distinctions between aliens and citizens. There is a basis for such a classification. Otherwise decided on the authority of Heim v. McCall, ante, p. 175.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS, FIRST DISTRICT, CITY OF NEW YORK, STATE OF NEW YORK. . The facts, which involve the constitutionality of § 14 of the Labor Law of New York, are stated in the opinion. submitted: 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 the Fourteenth Amendment; also because it abridges the privileges and immunities of plaintiff in error, a citizen of the United States, and of his alien employés by depriving1'them of their right to contract for labor. The enactment of said law and enforcement of its provisions deprives plaintiff in error and his employés 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. YI of 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 treaties were 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. The Fourteenth Amendment, either ex 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 Staté 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 the Fourteenth Amendment, 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 reversed and the ease 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.