Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. The Attorney General of Texas JIM MATTOX March 5, 1985 Attorney General Suprsms OoutI BulldIng EonorableFred J. Agnich OpinionNo. JM-298 P. 0. Box 12548 Chairman At&In. TX. 78711-2548 Committeeon Enviwnmeatal Affairs Re: Whether the state of Texas 51211752501 Texas Eouse of Relmesentatives must sell commercial fishing Telex Slcm7C1307 Tslscoplsr 51214759255 P. 0. Box 2910 licenses to a person residing Austin,Texas 711769 in a state which does not offer equivalent licenses to Texts 714 Jackson. Suite 700 residents Dallas. TX. 75202-4508 214i74228944 Dear Representattire Agnich: 4624 Alberta Ave.. SW4 160 You request an Attorney General's Opinion concerning sectioo El Paso, TX. 79805-2793 47.002 of the !?arks and Wildlife Code, which sets fees for a SlY533.3484 commercial fisherman'slicense. It establishes different fees for Texae residentsand nonresidents. “391 Texas. Suite 700 .ouston. TX. 77002.3111 Your letter providesthe follovinginformation: 71312295aa6 The state of Arkansas restrictsthe sale of its commercialfishing licensesto an area in the Red i95 Broadway, Sulle 312 Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 River here its south bank 1s the boundary line 0Wl47-5238 between Arkaasas aad Texas. In DO other area of the stnte are Texas residents alloved to fish commercially. On the other hand, Texas allovs the 4309 N. Tenth. SuIta S McAllm. TX. ml-1685 sale of licenses to Arkansas residents to com- 512m2.4547 merciallyfish ia any waters in our aFate. You ask two q,uestions: 290 MaIn Plaza, SUIW 4w San Antonio. TX. 782052797 512/2254191 1. 1,s the state of Texas required to sell reciprclcallicenses to a state that restrictsour Texas residents? AnEqual Opportunity/ Afll”“atlve AcMon EmplOyOr 2. Could Texas put a similar restriction on the sale of commercial liceaaee to the state of Arkanecw? Section 47.002 of the Parks and Wildlife Code provides an answer to your first qumition: p. 1340 EonorablcFred J. Agnich - P.tlp2 (JM-298) (a) No person may engage la business as a cossaercialfishermn unless he has obtained a generalcommercialfisherman'slicense. (b) The licenoe fee for a general commercial fisherman'slicense is $15. Fifty cents of the fee may be retaine~iby the issuing agent, except an employeeof the department. (c) The liceam fee for a nonresidentgeneral commercialfishermu's license is the amount that a Texas resident :lscharged in the state in which the nonresident1s residing for a similar license or $25, whichever amouat is the larger. The department shall publish a list of nonresident fees according to the fees of each state and way alter the fee amomts in the list before September 1 of each year for the remainderof that license year. Fifty cent,3of the fee may be retained by the issuing agent, except an employee of the department. A "commercial fisherman" 183 defined as "a person who catches fish. oysters,or other edible aquatic productsfrom the water of this state for pay or for the purpose of sale. barter, or exchange." Parka and Wild. Code 547.001(l). Sectioa 47.002 provides for the sale of nonresident general commercial fisherman'sliceoaea for the fee described in subsection Cc). It does aot authorize the Parka aad Wildlife Department to refuse a commercialfishermen'slicenseto nonresidentsfor the reason that their state diacrimi~rates against Texans in the issuance of c-rcial fishinglicenses, Your second question tsiaea an issue of federal constitutional law. Nonresidents are protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, article IV, section :!of the United States Conatitutionrwhich guarantees "the Citixena #J:Eeach State shall be entitled to all Privilegesand Imnities of Citizens in the several States." In any state. aonreaidentaare to have the same privilegesand immunitiesas residents of that state. Baldwin v. Fish and Game CocmPissioaof Hontaaa, 436 U.S. 371 (1978');Hague v. CIO. 307 U.S. 496 (1939). This clausehas been interpreted'LOpraveat a state from imposingunreason- able burdens on citizens oE other states in their pursuit of common callings within the state. Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana,supra. Discriminationbetween residentsand aonresidentsis permissible where there is a substantialreason for the differenceof treatment. p. 1341 RonorableFred J. Agaich - Pago 3 (Jn-298) United Building and ConstructionTrades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Com;i:ilof the City of Camden, 104 S.Ct. 1020 (1984). The substantial&son must. however, show "that noncitizena constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the q tatute is aimed." Toomer v. Witaell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948). Retaliationagainst another state's discriminatory legialatioa does aot provide the required justification. Austin v. Raw Eampahire. 420 U.S. 656, 668 (1975). Travis v. Yale uptown Manufacturing.Co., 252 U.S. 60. 82 (1920). Commercialfishinghas been recognizedas an occupationprotected by the Privilegesaad IxmanitieaClause. Toomer v. Witaell. supra. Cf. Baldwin v. Fish and Game Cosxaiaaioa of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978) (recreationalbig-iame hunting in Montana is aot a right protectedby Privilegesand ImmunitiesClause). In Toomer v. Uitsell, the United States Supreme Court declared unconstitutionala South Carolinastatutewhich vir,:ually excludednonreaidentafrom commercial shrimp fishingin South Ca:rolinawaters. Toomer v. Witsell,supra, at 396-97. For each ahrimpb~,at owned by a nonresident.South Carolina requireda license fee one-hundredtimes that paid by residents. Id. at 389. The court found no reasonable relationshipbetween rhe state's alleged purpose of conservation and this discriminatory statute. There was no "reasonablerelationshipbetween the danger representedby non-citizens,as a class, and the severe discrimination practicedupon them." Id. et 399. Nor did a state's interestin its wildlife justify its unroaaonableinterferencewith a nonresident's right to pursue a livelihoodin a state other than his own. Toomer v. Witsell. 334 U.S. 385 .(19'18)., See also Dobard v. State, 233 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. 1950). We conclude,in anawcr to your second question.that Texas may not discriminateagainst the residentsof other states in the sale of commercialfishinglicensesunless such discriminationis supportedby a "substantialreason"as rtequiredby the United States SupremeCourt. RetaliationagainstArkanassfor apparentdiacriminatioaagainstTexas residentsdoes not constitutethe requisitereason. SUMMARY Section 47.0(12of the Parka and Wildlife Code provides for the sale of nonresident general commercialfisherman'slicenses for the fees set out in subaec!::lon (c). The Privileges and ImmuaitieaClauoe, article IV. section 2 of the United States C~oaatitution prohibits Texas from discriminatingeSainat residents of other states in the sale of ct=rcial fishing licensesunless a substantialroeaon supports the discrimination. Retaliation agafnat another atate~for apparent p. 1342 RonorableFred J. Agnich - I?age4 (JM-298) discriminationa@nst Texas residents does not constitutethe requiredsubstantialreason. JIM MATTOX AttorneyGeneral of Texas TOM GREEN First AssistantAttorneyGeneral DAVID R. RICHARDS ExecutiveAssistantAttorneyGeneral RICX GILPIN Chairman,Opinion Committee Preparedby Susan L. Garrhon & Jack Carter AssistantAttorneysGeneral. APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Rick Gilpin.-Chairman Jon Bible Susan Garrison Tony Guillory Jim Moelliager JenniferRiggs Nancy Sutton p. 1343