The United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden case in 1983 revolved around a city ordinance that required at least 40% of employees working on city construction projects to be residents of the city. The Supreme Court ruled against this ordinance, stating it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause as well as Commerce Clause in Article IV, Section 2, clause 1; Article I, Section 8 respectively. This decision was based on their interpretation that these clauses prohibit states from discriminating against citizens from other states or interfering with interstate commerce without justification by a substantial state interest directly related to the regulation imposed. The court found no such justification for this particular local hiring preference.

In the dissenting opinion for UNITED BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF CAMDEN COUNTY AND VICINITY v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN et al., Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar cases, and failed to properly consider the city of Camden’s compelling interest in addressing its severe economic problems. He contended that Camden’s ordinance requiring a certain percentage of workers on city-funded construction projects to be local residents should not have been struck down as discriminatory against interstate commerce. The ordinance aimed at reducing unemployment and improving living conditions within the city, which he believed were legitimate goals under Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to apply strict scrutiny analysis or demonstrate how less restrictive alternatives could achieve these objectives effectively.