| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

French v. Edwards et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state could constitutionally require a non-resident to pay a tax on the income he earned in the state. The case was brought by a resident of New York, who had earned income in the state of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff argued that the Pennsylvania tax was unconstitutional, as it violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania tax was constitutional, as it did not violate the privileges and immunities clause. The Court reasoned that the tax was not discriminatory, as it applied equally to all non-residents, regardless of their state of residence. Furthermore, the Court held that the tax was not an undue burden on interstate commerce, as it was a reasonable means of raising revenue for the state. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania tax was constitutional, as it did not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the tax was not discriminatory, and was a reasonable means of raising revenue for the state.
In French v. Edwards et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that required African Americans to pay an annual tax of $2 in order to vote violated the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying or abridging the right of citizens of the United States to vote on account of race. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this amendment because it applied equally across all races and therefore did not deny any person their right to vote based on race. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that while technically true, such a law had been created with discriminatory intent and thus should be found unconstitutional under both the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as well as its Privileges or Immunities Clause. He argued further that even if one were inclined towards upholding such laws they would still have no place in our society today due to their inherently oppressive nature and how they serve only "to degrade those whom it affects".