Opinion ID: 2458228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the hue tax violates the privileges & immunities clause

Text: The privileges and immunities clause provides that [t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States. United States Constitution, Art. IV, § 2. It is well established that the privileges and immunities clause is inapplicable to corporations. Hemphill v. Orloff, 277 U.S. 537, 48 S.Ct. 577, 72 L.Ed. 978 (1928); Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization of Calif., 451 U.S. 648, 101 S.Ct. 2070, 68 L.Ed.2d 514 (1981). The named appellants, ATA, et al, are all corporations. Nevertheless, they argue that since their complaint was certified as a class action, there are non-corporate individuals within the class which permits them to raise a privileges and immunities challenge, citing City of Little Rock v. Cash, 277 Ark. 494, 644 S.W.2d 229 (1982), rehearing denied. Cash does not stand for that proposition. The lawsuit in that case was filed by six residents of the city of Little Rock who were water users. The case was certified as a class action. There is no discussion about corporate and noncorporate parties. Nor did our research indicate that there is any case law stating that it will be assumed that non-corporate individuals are included in a class action in a case such as this. In fact in ATA, et al v. Goldstein, et al., supra, the same appellants attempted to raise a privileges and immunities argument. The Maryland court noted that the clause was inapplicable to corporations and stated: [a]ll of the named plaintiffs are corporations. As such, they have no standing to challenge § 423(a) under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV. Here, as in that case, all the named plaintiffs are corporations. Therefore, they have no standing to make this argument.