Introduction

The case of Barbara Jenenne Nelson and Howard Arthur Dillon, Jr. versus Jim Geringer, Governor of Wyoming et al., adjudicated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on July 3, 2002, presents a significant legal discourse on the intersection of state-imposed residency requirements and constitutional protections under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Plaintiffs Nelson and Dillon, both nonresidents of Wyoming, were removed from their respective positions as Assistant Adjutant Generals (AAG) of the Wyoming National Guard following the enactment of a new state residency requirement. The plaintiffs challenged their removal under several constitutional provisions, notably the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Summary of the Judgment

The district court ruled in favor of Nelson and Dillon, holding that Wyoming's residency requirement for AAG positions violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The state appealed this decision to the Tenth Circuit. Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, reinforcing the constitutional protection against such residency restrictions.

The court determined that the residency requirement unjustifiably discriminated against nonresident citizens by impinging upon their ability to serve in the National Guard, a role deemed a privilege under the Constitution. The court further held that Wyoming failed to demonstrate a substantial state interest that would justify the residency mandate.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively engaged with several key precedents, including:

• DUNN v. BLUMSTEIN, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) - Addressing durational residency requirements and their invalidation under the Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection Clauses.
• Friedman v. Supreme Court of the United States, 487 U.S. 59 (1988) - Establishing the two-prong test for evaluating residency requirements under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
• Piper v. Ray, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) and Supreme Court v. Friedman, 487 U.S. 59 (1988) - Clarifying exceptions to the Privileges and Immunities Clause for state functions essential to sovereignty.
• United Building Constr. Trades Council v. Mayor of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984) - Expanding on what constitutes a privilege under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

These precedents collectively informed the court's approach to determining whether Wyoming's residency requirement was constitutionally permissible.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a two-pronged analysis derived from Friedman to assess the constitutionality of Wyoming's residency requirement:

1. Protected Activity Analysis: Determining whether serving in the National Guard is a protected privilege or immunity under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
2. State Interest Justification: Evaluating if the residency requirement serves a substantial state interest and is closely related to advancing that interest.

The court concluded that serving in the National Guard is indeed a protected activity because it is intrinsic to national defense and unites U.S. citizens in a shared mission. Furthermore, Wyoming failed to demonstrate that the residency requirement served a substantial state interest that could not be achieved by less discriminatory means.

Impact

This judgment underscores the constitutional limiations states face when imposing residency requirements on public officials, especially in roles that serve federal interests. It reaffirms the overarching principle that states cannot infringe upon federal privileges and immunities granted to U.S. citizens, particularly in functions integral to national security.

Future cases involving residency requirements for state-appointed officials in dual-role positions (state and federal) must carefully navigate the Privileges and Immunities Clause, ensuring that state-imposed restrictions do not unlawfully discriminate against nonresident citizens.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Privileges and Immunities Clause

Found in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, this clause ensures that citizens of each state are entitled to the same privileges and immunities as citizens in other states. It prevents states from discriminating against citizens from other states in matters concerning fundamental rights and basic economic activities.

Assistant Adjutant General (AAG)

An AAG is a high-ranking officer in the National Guard, responsible for overseeing national guard units within a state. This position has both state and federal implications due to the National Guard's dual role in state defense and federal missions.

Dual State-Federal Control of the National Guard

The National Guard operates under both state and federal authority. While they are primarily state entities during peacetime, they can be federalized for national defense or other federal missions. This dual control complicates the application of state laws to National Guard positions.

Eleventh Amendment

The Eleventh Amendment restricts individuals from suing states in federal court without the state's consent. However, there are exceptions, such as the EX PARTE YOUNG doctrine, which allows for prospective injunctive relief against state officials for ongoing constitutional violations.

Conclusion

The Nelson and Dillon v. Geringer case marks a pivotal affirmation of constitutional protections against state-imposed residency requirements for positions that inherently serve both state and federal interests. By upholding the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Tenth Circuit reinforced the principle that states cannot infringe upon the rights of nonresident citizens in roles crucial to national defense and unity.

This decision serves as a precedent ensuring that states must carefully balance their governance needs with federal constitutional protections, particularly in areas where state and federal responsibilities intersect. It underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the delicate equilibrium between state sovereignty and federal constitutional mandates.