Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Truax Et Al., Copartners, Doing Business Under The Firm Name And Style Of William Truax, v. Corrigan Et Al.

• 1921 • 257 U.S. 312 • Taft Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case Truax v. Corrigan in 1921 revolved around the constitutionality of an Arizona law that required businesses with more than five employees to have at least 80% of their workforce be American citizens or individuals who sought citizenship. Mike Corrigan, a non-citizen cook employed by William Truax's restaurant, was fired due to this law and subsequently sued for wrongful termination. The court ruled in favor of Corrigan, stating that the Arizona statute violated both...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Taft Court
Term: 1921
Docket: 13
257 U.S. 312
42 S. Ct. 124
66 L. Ed. 254
1921 U.S. LEXIS 1345
Argued: Apr 29, 1920

Truax Et Al., Copartners, Doing Business Under The Firm Name And Style Of William Truax, v. Corrigan Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case Truax v. Corrigan in 1921 revolved around the constitutionality of an Arizona law that required businesses with more than five employees to have at least 80% of their workforce be American citizens or individuals who sought citizenship. Mike Corrigan, a non-citizen cook employed by William Truax's restaurant, was fired due to this law and subsequently sued for wrongful termination. The court ruled in favor of Corrigan, stating that the Arizona statute violated both the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and employers' freedom-of-contract rights under common law principles incorporated into Due Process Clause jurisprudence. This landmark decision established important precedents regarding employment discrimination based on nationality and affirmed constitutional protections against such discriminatory laws.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Truax v. Corrigan, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the Arizona law in question did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as it was a reasonable regulation of business to protect workers' rights and prevent violence during labor disputes. He believed that states have broad powers to regulate businesses within their borders, including setting conditions on hiring practices if they serve a legitimate public interest such as promoting peace and order or protecting workers from unfair treatment by employers. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that this law violated an employer's freedom of contract because he saw no constitutional right to hire only non-union employees or fire employees for joining unions; instead, these were matters best left up to state legislatures rather than federal courts.

Opinion written by Justice WHTaft
Decided: Dec 19, 1921
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms