Truax v. Raich
Citations
- 239 U.S. 33
- 36 S. Ct. 7
- 60 L. Ed. 131
- 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1521
Syllabus
<p>A suit against officers of. the State who are about to proceed wrongfully to complainant’s injury in enforcing an unconstitutional statute is not a suit against the State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment.</p> <p>While, generally speaking, a court of equity has no jurisdiction over prosecution, punishment or pardon .of crimes or misdemeanors, equity may, when such action is essential to the safeguarding of property rights, restrain criminal prosecutions under unconstitutional statutes.</p> <p>The right to earn a livelihood and to continue employment unmolested by efforts to enforce void enactments is entitled to protection in equity in the absence of an adequate remedy at law.</p> <p>The fact that an employment is at the will of the employer and employé does not make it one at the will of others, and unjustified interference of third parties is actionable although the employment may be at will.</p> <p>Although a statute may only render an employer liable to prosecution, if it operates directly upon the employment of -the employé and its enforcement would compel the discharge of an employé, the latter is affected directly, has no adequate remedy at law, and if the statute is unconstitutional, is entitled to equitable relief.</p> <p>An alien admitted to the United States under the Federal law has not only the privilege of entering and abiding in- the United States but also of entering and abiding in any State, and being an inhabitant of any State entitles him, under the Fourteenth Amendment, to the equal protection of its laws.</p> <p>The description in the Fourteenth Amendment of any person within the jurisdiction of the United States includes aliens. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356.</p> <p>The right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the essence of that personal freedom and opportunity which it was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure. The power to control immigration — to admit or exclude aliens — is v
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that the weight of authority considers a third party’s unjustified interference with an employment-at-will contract actionable
- recognizing that the weight of authority considers a third party's unjustified interference with an employment-at-will contract actionable
- recognizing that the threat of prosecution may lead to an unconstitutional denial of the right to earn a livelihood and to continue employment
- holding that “the complainant is entitled under the 14th Amendment to the equal protection of its laws” because he is “lawfully an inhabitant of Arizona”
- recognizing that the weight of authority considers a third party’s unjustified interference with an employment-at-will contract actionable
- recognizing that the threat of prosecution may lead to an unconstitutional denial of the right to earn a livelihood and to continue employment
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hughes, McReynolds
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
710 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 14,284×
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court· 1973-01-22· cited 5,581×
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court· 1961-02-20· cited 4,784×
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court· 1965-06-07· cited 4,329×
- Meyer v. NebraskaSupreme Court· 1923-06-04· cited 3,363×
- Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court· 1969-04-21· cited 3,119×
- Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroySupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 2,289×
- Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court· 1939-06-05· cited 2,178×
- McCleskey v. KempSupreme Court· 1987-06-08· cited 2,038×
- Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaSupreme Court· 1976-06-25· cited 1,999×
- Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. WilliamsonSupreme Court· 1942-06-01· cited 1,929×
- Shelley v. KraemerSupreme Court· 1948-05-03· cited 1,913×
- Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSupreme Court· 1951-04-30· cited 1,907×
- Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.Supreme Court· 1949-10-10· cited 1,701×
- Regents of the University of California v. BakkeSupreme Court· 1978-06-28· cited 1,665×
- Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. WestoverSupreme Court· 1959-05-25· cited 1,664×
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court· 1938-01-31· cited 1,626×
- Graham v. RichardsonSupreme Court· 1971-06-14· cited 1,494×
- Greene v. McElroySupreme Court· 1959-06-29· cited 1,385×
- Zablocki v. RedhailSupreme Court· 1978-01-18· cited 1,224×
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court· 1886-05-10· cited 3,789×
- Fong Yue Ting v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1893-05-15· cited 692×
- Allgeyer v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1897-03-01· cited 582×
- Wong Wing v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1896-05-18· cited 526×
- Philadelphia Co. v. StimsonSupreme Court· 1912-03-04· cited 450×
- In Re SawyerSupreme Court· 1888-01-09· cited 430×
- United States v. Wong Kim ArkSupreme Court· 1898-03-28· cited 427×
- Dobbins v. Los AngelesSupreme Court· 1904-11-14· cited 361×
- Bailey v. AlabamaSupreme Court· 1911-01-03· cited 354×
- Coppage v. KansasSupreme Court· 1915-01-25· cited 345×
- Patsone v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1914-01-19· cited 328×
- Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York Commissioners of Immigration v. North German LloydSupreme Court· 1876-03-20· cited 300×
- Fitts v. McGheeSupreme Court· 1899-01-03· cited 275×
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los AngelesSupreme Court· 1913-02-24· cited 269×
- McCready v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1877-04-30· cited 261×
- Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College of South CarolinaSupreme Court· 1911-05-29· cited 231×
- Hauenstein v. LynhamSupreme Court· 1880-01-19· cited 223×
- Miller v. WilsonSupreme Court· 1915-02-23· cited 223×
- McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1914-11-30· cited 199×
- Otis v. ParkerSupreme Court· 1903-01-05· cited 177×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.