239 U.S. 33, 36 S.Ct. 7, 60 L.Ed. 131 ( 1915)
Through the initiative, Arizona in 1914 adopted a measure
designed to protect citizens of the United States in their em-
ployment against non-citizens, and provided penalties for
violations. The act required that 80 per cent of the employees
in any firm employing five or more persons must be electors or
native-born citizens of the United States or a state. Raich, a
native of Austria, threatened with discharge from his job solely
because he was an alien, sought and obtained an injunction in
the District Court of the United States against enforcement of
the act. The state appealed. The following excerpts pertain to
the merits of the issues raised by Raich.
MR. JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court. . . .
The question. . . is whether the act assailed is repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. Upon the allegations of the bill, it must be assumed that the complainant, a native of Austria, has been admitted to the United States under the federal law. He was thus admitted with the privilege of entering and abiding in the United States, and hence of entering and abiding in any state in the Union. . . . Being lawfully an inhabitant of Arizona, the complainant is entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment to the equal protection of its laws. The description -- 'any person within its jurisdiction' -- as it has frequently been held, includes aliens. 'These provisions,' said the court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (referring to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Amendment), 'are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.'. . . The discrimination defined by the act does not pertain to the regulation or distribution of the public domain, or of the common property or resources of the people of the state, the enjoyment of which may be limited to its citizens as against both aliens and the citizens of other states. Thus in McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391, 396, the restriction to the citizens of Virginia of the right to plant oysters in one of its rivers was sustained upon the ground that the regulation related to the common property of the citizens of the state, and an analogous principle was involved in Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138, 145, 146, where the discrimination against aliens upheld by the court had for its object the protection of wild game within the states with respect to which it was said that the state could exercise its preserving power for the benefit of its own citizens if it pleased. The case now presented is not within these decisions, or within those relating to the devolution of real property. . . and it should be added that the act is not limited to persons who are engaged on public work or receive the benefit of public moneys. The discrimination here involved is imposed