Evening star., 1941-11-24
Supreme Court Rules
California 'Anti-0kie'
Legislation Invalid
Assistance to Nonresident
lndigents Defended in
Byrnes' First Decision
BY J. A. FOX.

Anti-Okie" Law which prohibits
the bringing of nonresident indi-
gents into the State. The decision
affects similar laws in q other
States.
The court unanimously rejected
the statute, but rendered three
opinions. The principal opinion
was read by Justice Byrnes-his first
since coming to the bench last
month. Justice Byrnes said the
statute "is not a valid exercise of
the police power of California . I"
1t imposes an unconstitutional bur-
den upon interstate commerce and
''' the conviction under it cannot
be sustained"
Separate concurring opinions were
read by Justice Jackson and Justice
Douglas, who was joined by Justices
Black and Murphy.
The case was pressed by the Civil
Liberties Union after the conviction
of Fred F. Edwards of MarySville,
Calf, who brought in his brother
in-law, Frank Duncan, from Spur,
Tex, to Marysville, where he OBJ
tanned help from the Farm Security
Administration. Mr.. Edwards, now
a State employe at San Jose, Calf.
received a suspended sentence of
six months. The case came up on
appeal from the Yuba County
Court, which said the law was a
valid exercise of the States police
power.
Violation Of Two Clauses.
The appeal attacked the law both
as a violation of the commerce
clause and of the due process clause
Of the Constitution. The court
argued the litigation at the last
term, but then called for reargu-
ment at this term. The California
statute-which traces back many
years-was adopted to halt the flood
of INDECENT migration into the State.
The court said:
The gravity and perplexity of the
social and economic dislocation
which this statute reflects is a
matter Of common knowledge and
concern. We are not unmindful Of
It. We appreciate that the spec
tacle of large segments of our popu-
lation constantly on the move has
given rise to urgent demands upon
the ingenuity of government.
The State asserts that the huge
influx of migrants into California
In recent years has resulted in
problems of health, morals and
especially finance, the proportions
Of which are staggering. 1t is not
for us to say that this is not true
We have repeatedly and recently
affirmed, and we now reaffirm, that
we do not conceive it our function
to pass upon the wisdom, need or
Appropriateness of the legislative
efforts of the States to solve such
difficulties.
But this does not mean that there
are no boundaries to the permissible
area OF State legislative activity.
There are. And none is more Ger
tain than the prohibition against
attempts on the part of any single
State to isolate itself from difficulties
common to all of them by restraining
the transportation of persons and
property across its borders. It is
frequently the case that a State
might gain momentary respite
from the pressure of events by the
simple expedient of shutting it's gates
to the outside world. But in the
words OF Mr.. Justice Cardozo, the
Constitution was framed under the
dominion of a political philosophy
less parochial in range. It was
framed upon the theory that the
peoples of the several States must
sink or swim together and that in
the long run prosperity and saliva
ton are In union and not division. ;
Squarely in Conflict.
1T Is difficult to conceive OF a
statute more squarely in conflict
with this theory than the section
COZ the California law challenged
is. Its express purpose and in
evltable effect is to prohibit the
transportation of INDECENT persons
across the California border. The
burden upon interstate commerce
Is intended and immediate; it is
the plain and sole function of the
statute.
Moreover, the INDECENT non-resi-
dents who are the real victims of
the statute are deprived of the op-
portunity to exert political pressure
upon the California Legislature in
order to obtain a change in policy,
We think this statute must fail
under any known test of the validity
OF State interference with inter-
state commerce"
Inasmuch as the law falls under
the commerce clause of the Consti-
tuition, the court said it was not
necessary to decide If it was also
repugnant to the process clause.
Ihe concurrlng justices argued
that the law should have been held
unconstitutional because it violates
the due process clause. Justice
Douglas said he was expressing no
opinion as to whether the law also
violated the commerce clause but
that the right to move freely from
State to State is an incident on ma
tional citizenship protected by the
privileges and immunity clause of
the 14th Amendment against State
interference" He added that "the
conclusion that the right of free
movement is a right of national
citizenship stands on firm historical
ground"
Justice Jackson said that to decide
this case involving "the migrations
Of a human being"-on the ground
that it violates the commerce clause
Of the Constitution-"is likely to re-
suit eventually either in distorting
the commercial law or denaturing
human rights" This should" JUS
tice Jackson said, hold squarely
that it is privilege of citizenship
of United States protected from
State abridgement to enter any
State of the Union either for tenn
porary sojourn or for the establish
ment of permanent residence there
in and for gaining resultant citizen
ship thereof. 1t national citizenship
means less than this it means
nothing"