Crandall v. Nevada
This 1868 U.S. Supreme Court case established that a state cannot inhibit a person from leaving the state by taxing them. The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Miller. Chief Justice Chase and Justice Clifford concurred. Justice Taney dissented.
"But if the government has these rights on her own account, the citizen also has correlative rights. He has the right to come to the seat of the government... this right is in its nature independent of the will of any State over whose soil he must pass in the exercise of it." –Miller, J.
The facts. In 1868 a Nevada statute required a $1 tax on every person leaving the state by railroad, stage coach, or other vehicles engaged or employed in the business of transporting passengers for hire.
Issue and Holding. Does the tax violate Article I, section 10, which prohibits state "Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports?" No. Is the tax allowed? No.
Reasoning. The court argued that a person traveling is different from the transportation of a good, therefore you can’t have imposts or duties on a person. The Court cited precedent from Cooley v. Board of Wardens to show that a tax "does not itself institute any regulation of commerce of a national character..." The Court also used precedent from McCulloch v. Maryland to show that the very presence of the tax was unconstitutional, not its degree of burdensomeness.
Concurring/Dissenting Opinions. Chief Justice Chase and Justice Clifford concurred. They based their reasoning on the commerce clause of the Constitution, saying that this tax impeded interstate commerce. Justice Taney dissented.
Significance. A state cannot inhibit a person from leaving the state by taxing them
External links
Source: Brest, Levinson, Balkin, Amar, and Siegel. Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking, 5th edition. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2006.
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |