## Facts

- Camden, New Jersey adopted an ordinance requiring that at least 40% of employees working on city construction projects be Camden residents.
- The ordinance was enacted under a statewide affirmative-action program and required approval by the New Jersey Treasury Department before taking effect.
- A building-trades association challenged the state’s approval of the ordinance, arguing that the local-hire requirement unlawfully discriminated against nonresidents.
- The challengers asserted violations of, among other provisions, the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause.

## Issues

1. Whether the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause applies to a municipal ordinance that discriminates based on city residency rather than state citizenship.
2. If the Clause applies, whether a municipal local-hire quota burdens a protected privilege (including pursuit of a common calling) and, if so, what justification standard governs the discrimination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment upholding the ordinance and remanded for application of the correct Article IV standard.
- The Court held that a municipality, as a state political subdivision, is subject to the Privileges and Immunities Clause; municipal form does not insulate discriminatory rules from Article IV review.
- The Court rejected the view that Article IV is inapplicable merely because the ordinance disadvantages in-state non-Camden residents as well as out-of-state residents.
- The Court did not decide whether the ordinance was ultimately constitutional; it required further fact-finding on whether the discrimination was justified under Article IV.
- The Court stated that any market-participant analysis under the Dormant Commerce Clause does not resolve, and does not bar, separate scrutiny under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

## Legal Principles

- The Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause can reach discrimination implemented through municipal ordinances because municipalities act by authority derived from the state.
- For most Article IV analysis, “citizen” and “resident” are treated as functionally equivalent; discrimination keyed to municipal residency can trigger Article IV scrutiny when it disadvantages out-of-state citizens.
- Article IV review proceeds in two steps:
  - Whether the challenged rule burdens a privilege protected by the Clause, including the right to pursue a common calling in another state.
  - If so, whether the government has a substantial reason for discriminating against nonresidents and whether the discrimination bears a close relationship to that reason (including whether nonresidents are a peculiar source of the problem addressed).
- The market-participant concept under Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine does not immunize residency-based conditions on public contracting from Article IV Privileges and Immunities limits.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Camden’s 40% local-hire requirement is subject to Article IV Privileges and Immunities scrutiny despite being a municipal measure and despite its parallel impact on in-state non-Camden residents, and it remanded for application of the substantial-reason and close-relationship test to determine whether the discrimination is justified.


United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of Camden Cnty. & Vicinity v. Mayor & Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984)