Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Hicklin v. Orbeck Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States1978Docket #403763
57 L. Ed. 2d 397 98 S. Ct. 2482 437 U.S. 518 1978 U.S. LEXIS 36 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8375 Constitutional Law Natural Resources Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: Alaska passed a law giving its residents hiring preference for jobs related to its oil and gas industry. The Supreme Court struck down the law, finding it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause by discriminating against non-residents without sufficient justification.

Legal Significance: This case established that a state’s ownership of natural resources does not create a blanket exception to the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Any discrimination against non-residents must be substantially related to a specific evil they present and cannot be overly broad.

Hicklin v. Orbeck Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

To combat high unemployment, Alaska enacted the “Alaska Hire” statute, which required that all oil and gas leases, pipeline permits, and related agreements to which the state was a party include a provision mandating hiring preference for qualified Alaska residents. The law’s scope was extensive, applying not only to primary lessees but also to their contractors, subcontractors, and even suppliers, covering all employment resulting from the state’s oil and gas activities. Appellants, non-resident individuals who were denied employment opportunities on projects like the Trans-Alaska Pipeline due to this preference, challenged the statute. They argued it violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, § 2. The State of Alaska defended the law, asserting that its ownership of the oil and gas resources justified the resident preference and that the measure was necessary to address the state’s unique unemployment problems. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the general preference, leading to this appeal.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a state law that grants a hiring preference to its own residents for all employment related to the development of state-owned oil and gas resources violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, § 2?

Yes. The Court held that the Alaska Hire statute’s blanket preference for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugi

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a state law that grants a hiring preference to its own residents for all employment related to the development of state-owned oil and gas resources violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, § 2?

Conclusion

The decision significantly limits a state's ability to use its ownership of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut

Legal Rule

A state law discriminating against non-residents violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit a

Legal Analysis

The Court, applying the two-part test from *Toomer v. Witsell*, found the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaec

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Summary unavailable

No flash summary is available for this opinion.

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More