Case Citator › Mayor of New York v. Miln

Mayor of New York v. Miln

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
36 U.S. 102
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
5 of 5
Citing cases (total)
5
Treatment dates
1941
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Mayor of New York v. Miln was overruled in part as to a State's power to exclude paupers as a police-power measure. All 5 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The 1 confirmed treatment is listed below; the other citing opinions reported another court's treatment, quoted unrelated precedent, or contained a rejected dissent.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

5 later cases cite Mayor of New York v. Miln; 5 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Mayor of New York v. Miln?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Miln's rationale that poverty could justify a State's exclusion of people as a “moral pestilence.”

    Edwards v. California · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, at 143, it was said that it is “as competent and as necessary for a State to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts, as it is to guard against the physical pestilence, which may arise from unsound and infectious articles imported, . . .” ... In none of these cases, however, was the power of a State to exclude “paupers” actually involved. ... But assuming that the term is applicable to him and to persons similarly situated, we do not consider ourselves bound by the language referred to. City of New York v. Miln was decided in 1837. Whatever may have been the notion then prevailing, we do not think that it will now be seriously contended that because a person is without employment and without funds he constitutes a “moral pestilence.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Mayor of New York v. Miln and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace