Jump to content

Patsone v. Pennsylvania

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Patsone v. Pennsylvania , 232 U.S. 138 (1914) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Pennsylvania’s Act of May 8, 1909, deeming it unlawful for "unnaturalized foreign born residents" to kill wild animals, except for when defending their property or person and only by means of a pistol; the Pennsylvania statue barred unnaturalized foreign born residents from possession of shotguns or rifles for any reason.[1] Although the case was directly addressing Second Amendment rights of noncitizens in the context of wild game, it also brought forward discussions of Fourteenth Amendment rights for noncitizens, State’s rights to wildlife, and symmetry of justice.[2] [3]

Background

[edit]

On the night of October 19, 1909, Joseph Pastone, an Italian immigrant living in western Pennsylvania, was arrested in his home for possessing a shotgun.[4] Speaking little English, Patsone was unsure as to why he was being fined $25 or why his shotgun was being taken away; eventually he was provided legal representation, attorney Marcel Viti, and his case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.[4]

Argument

[edit]

The appellant, and counsel, brought forth three reasons the law contradicts his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and The Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, February 26, 1871, a treaty between Italy and the United States:[1] [5]

  • The law is unconstitutional as it is depriving Patsone of his right to due process and equal protection.[4]
  • The law is violating Article 2 of The Treaty of Commerce and Navigation.[5] [6]
    • Which states: “the citizens of each of the parties [United States and Italy] shall have liberty to … generally do anything incident to or necessary to trade upon the same terms as natives of the country.”[6]
  • The law is violating Article 3 of The Treaty of Commerce and Navigation.[5] [6]
    • Which states: “the citizens of each party in the territory of the other, as to protection and security of body and property shall enjoy the same privileges as natives.”[6]

Opinion of the Court

[edit]

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., speaking for the majority, delivered the court’s objection to the appellant’s claim that the law was unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment, because the law was not putting a restriction on all weapons; Patsone was still able to purchase pistols, a weapon commonly used for protection.[7] Additionally, the court relied on the case of Geer v. Connecticut when defending the law’s constitutionality. In the case of Geer v. Connecticut, the court ruled that it is prohibited to kill and then transport specific wild bird species across State limits.[8] The case drew on the tradition of animal’s “ferœ naturœ,” loosely meaning having no exact owner, and deemed animals as “belonging in common to all the citizens of the State [or law-giving power].” [8] Therefore, according to Justice Holmes, the discrimination against “aliens as a class” is warranted in the pursuit of the protection of wildlife, the property of the State and its citizens.[1]

In response to the articles of the treaty, Justice Holmes simply explains that Article 2 refers to trade, which is not the issue at hand, and Article 3 is dismissed on the basis that the State reserves the power to maintain wild game for its citizens, as decided in Geer v. Connecticut.[1] [8] Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Pennsylvania’s Act of May 8, 1909, with only one of the justices in dissent, Chief Justice Edward Douglass White.[4]

Issues

[edit]

One of the most important issues discussed in this case is the use, or lack thereof, of symmetry in terms of treatment of citizens versus noncitizens. In effort to determine who has the knowledge and responsibility of labeling a class as “evil,” Justice Holmes states, “the question is a practical one, dependent upon experience” and “the demand for symmetry ignores the specific difference that experience is supposed to have shown to mark the class.”[1] The distinction of needing to have specific knowledge of the people and the dismissal of symmetry, part of law that prohibits discrimination, is understood as the Justices pointing toward other, more knowledgeable, bodies to determine the categorization of “evil” in this situation.[2] [9] The ruling confirms the need of local knowledge, when the ruling gives the power to the State to decide how to label the class, noncitizens, and its prohibitions of said class.

Legacy

[edit]

Patsone v. Pennsylvania has never been overturned.[10] Additionally, the case was used as a precedent to validate the Washington anti-discrimination statute, to the detriment of those using the case as a reference, in the case of O’Meara v. Washington State Bd. Against Discrimination.[11][12]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (1914) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/138/#top
  2. ^ a b Naomi Schoenbaum, “The Case for Symmetry in Antidiscrimination Law,” GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works, January 1, 2016, https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1239.
  3. ^ L. E. L., “Constitutional Law. Equal Protection of the Laws. State Legislation Discriminating against Aliens,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register 64, no. 6 (1916): 616–19, https://doi.org/10.2307/3313142.
  4. ^ a b c d Roy Lucas, "From Patsone & (and) Miller to Silveira v. Lockyer: To Keep and Bear Arms," Thomas Jefferson Law Review 26, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 257-332, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/tjeflr26&i=265.
  5. ^ a b c Joseph Bathanti, “Italian Americana,” Italian Americana Vol. 36, no. 1 (2018): 111–13. : https://www.jstor.org/stable/45210770
  6. ^ a b c d “Commonwealth v. Patsone, 231 Pa. 46, 79 A. 928 (1911)," accessed September 25, 2023, https://famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Research/CourtDecisions/State/79a928.htm.
  7. ^ David E. Murley, "Private Enforcement of the Social Contract: DeShaney and the Second Amendment Right to Own Firearms," Duquesne Law Review 36, no. 1 (Fall 1997): 15-48, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/duqu36&i=31.
  8. ^ a b c “Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 | Casetext Search + Citator,” accessed September 25, 2023, https://casetext.com/case/geer-v-state-of-connecticut/.
  9. ^ Karen Petroski, "The Rhetoric of Symmetry," Valparaiso University Law Review 41, no. 3 (Spring 2007): 1165-1234, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/valur41&i=1173.
  10. ^ John Cicchitti, "The Second Amendment and Citizenship: Why "the People" Does Not Include Noncitizens," George Mason Law Review 30, no. 2 (Winter 2023): 525-564, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/gmlr30&i=533
  11. ^ Arval A. Morris & Daniel B. Ritter, Comment, Racial Minority Housing in Washington, 37 Wash. L. Rev. 131 (1962), https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol37/iss2/6
  12. ^ “O’Meara v. Bd. Against Discrim.,” Justia Law, accessed September 25, 2023, https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/1961/35436-1.html.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patsone_v._Pennsylvania&oldid=1207304000"