## Facts

- South Carolina regulated commercial shrimping in the three-mile maritime belt off its coast through licensing, taxes, and criminally enforceable rules.
- Five commercial shrimp fishermen who were citizens of Georgia challenged the scheme; a nonprofit fish dealers’ association also sued.
- South Carolina imposed a boat license fee of $25 per boat for resident owners and $2,500 per boat for nonresident owners.
- Plaintiffs alleged the fee differential was designed to exclude nonresidents and secure the fishery for South Carolina fishermen rather than to conserve shrimp.
- South Carolina also imposed a tax of 1/8 cent per pound on “green shrimp” taken in the maritime belt.
- A three-judge federal district court denied injunctive relief, upheld the statutes, and dismissed the suit; plaintiffs took a direct appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the fish dealers’ association had standing to seek an injunction against enforcement of the statutes.
2. Whether a state “pay under protest and sue for refund” procedure provided an adequate remedy at law barring equitable relief as to a tax provision.
3. Whether threatened criminal enforcement and business losses constituted irreparable injury justifying equitable relief for the individual fishermen.
4. Whether prior violations by some plaintiffs barred relief under the clean-hands doctrine.
5. Whether South Carolina’s per-pound tax on green shrimp violated Article I limits on state taxation or the Commerce Clause.
6. Whether the $2,500 nonresident versus $25 resident shrimp-boat license fee violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.

## Decision

- The Court held the fish dealers’ association lacked standing because the record did not show irreparable injury to the association.
- The Court held equitable relief was properly denied as to a tax provision where state law allowed payment under protest and a refund suit, and plaintiffs did not show that remedy was unavailable or inadequate.
- The Court held the individual fishermen showed irreparable injury as to criminally enforceable provisions because defiance risked severe penalties and compliance or withdrawal risked uncompensable business losses.
- The Court rejected the clean-hands defense because prior fishing convictions were unrelated to the constitutionality of the challenged statutes.
- The Court held South Carolina could regulate the fishery within three miles of its coast absent conflicting federal action, subject to constitutional limits.
- The Court upheld the 1/8-cent-per-pound tax on green shrimp as not taxing imports and not unduly burdening interstate commerce.
- The Court struck down the discriminatory boat license fee as violating Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

## Legal Principles

- Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause restricts state discrimination against citizens of other states in protected economic pursuits, including “common callings.”
- When a state discriminates against nonresidents, it must show a substantial reason beyond nonresidency, and the discrimination must bear a close relationship to that reason.
- A state’s conservation interest may justify some differential treatment, but the state must connect nonresident status to the asserted problem and justify the degree of disparity.
- State regulation of coastal resources within the territorial belt may proceed under state police power when it does not conflict with federal authority, but it remains subject to constitutional constraints.
- A per-unit tax connected to taking resources within a state’s regulatory sphere may be valid if it does not function as an import tax and does not impose an undue burden on interstate commerce.
- Equitable relief may be unavailable where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law exists (such as a refund action), but may be appropriate where threatened criminal sanctions and uncompensable losses establish irreparable injury.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated South Carolina’s extreme nonresident shrimp-boat license fee because it discriminatorily burdened out-of-state citizens engaged in a protected livelihood without a substantial, closely related justification, while sustaining other parts of the regulatory scheme, including a modest per-pound shrimp tax, and clarifying limits on standing and equitable relief.


Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948)