Fonte: Privileges and Immunities Clause, Commerce Clause e Edwards v. California.
Comentário: é interessante notar que o entendimento majoritário foi embasado na cláusula do comércio e não na cláusula de privilégios e imunidades, o que mostra a natureza liberal (direitos de 1a. geração) do direito constitucional americano.
Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) was a United States Supreme Court case where a California law prohibiting the bringing of a non-resident "indigent person" into the state was struck down as unconstitutional.
The so-called, "anti-Okie" law made it a misdemeanor to bring into California, "any indegent person who is not a resident of the State, knowing him to be an indegent person." Edwards was a Californian who had driven to Texas and returned with his unemployed brother-in-law. He was tried, convicted and given a six-month suspended sentence. On appeal from the Superior Court of Yuba County, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the verdict and declared the law unconstitutional, as violating the Constitution's Commerce Clause. Justice Byrnes wrote the majority opinion. In concurring opinions, Justices Douglas joined by Justices Black and Murphy, and Justice Jackson held that the law violated the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Cláusula de comércio
Artigo I, Seção 8, Cláusula 3:
“The Congress shall have power … To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
Cláusula de privilégios e imunidades
Artigo IV, Seção 2, Cláusula 1:
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
