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

The U.S. Supreme Court case White, Mayor of Boston, et al. v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, Inc., et al., 1982 revolved around an executive order issued by the mayor of Boston that required all construction projects funded in whole or part by city funds or city-administered federal funds to be performed by a workforce consisting at least half (50%) of bona fide Boston residents. The Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers and various contractors challenged this order on grounds that it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause as well as the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. In a 5-4 decision, however, the Supreme Court upheld this executive order stating it did not violate either clause because its primary purpose was to ensure employment opportunities for local residents rather than discriminating against non-residents based on their residency status alone. Furthermore, since these were public works contracts financed with municipal resources - whether derived from taxes paid primarily by city residents or from federal grants - they fell within proprietary powers possessed by states and municipalities allowing them to favor their own citizens over others when spending public money.
In the dissenting opinion for White, Mayor of Boston, et al. v. Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, Inc., et al., Justice Powell argued that the city's executive order was unconstitutional because it violated both the Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause. He contended that by requiring half of all workers on city-funded construction projects to be Boston residents, non-residents were unfairly disadvantaged in violation of their constitutional rights. Furthermore, he believed this requirement placed an undue burden on interstate commerce as contractors would have to hire local workers even if more qualified or cheaper labor was available elsewhere. In his view, such a policy could lead to retaliatory measures from other states which would further hinder interstate commerce.