Marilley v. Bonham, No. 13-17358 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, representatives of a class of non-resident commercial fishers, filed suit contending that California’s discriminatory fees violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. The court held that California's differential commercial fishing license fees, Cal. Fish & Game Code 7852, 7881, 8550.5, and 8280.6, violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause because charging non-residents two to three times the amount charged to residents plainly burdens non-residents’ right to pursue a common calling, in this case commercial fishing. Although its stated objective, compensation for State expenditures for conservation or enforcement, is valid, California has failed to show that the differential fee charged to a non-resident is closely related to a resident’s share of the State’s expenditures. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs.
Court Description: Constitutional Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff class of non-resident commercial fishers who contended that California’s discriminatory fishing fees violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. The panel held that California’s differential commercial fishing license fees, Cal. Fish & Game Code §§ 7852, 7881, 8550.5, and 8280.6, which charged non-residents two or three times more in fees than residents, violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause because California failed to offer a closely related justification for its discrimination against non- residents. Judge Graber dissented because she would hold that further evidentiary development is necessary to determine whether the differential fees are permissible under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and she would reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. MARILLEY V. BONHAM 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.