|
The Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause) prevents states from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner, with regard to basic civil rights. The clause also embraces a right to travel, so that a citizen can enjoy privileges and immunities in any states he or she wishes. The text of the clause reads: Wikisource has original text related to this article: Constitution of the United States of America Page one of the original copy of the Constitution. ...
Federal courts Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties Libertarian Party State & Local government Governors Legislatures (List) State Courts Counties, Cities, and Towns Other countries Politics Portal A U.S. state is any one of the fifty subnational entities of...
| “ | The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. | ” |
History prior to ratification of the Constitution The Privileges and Immunities Clause is similar to a provision that was contained in the Articles of Confederation. According to that provision, "the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States." The Articles of Confederation The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, commonly known as the Articles of Confederation, was the first governing document, or constitution, of the United States of America. ...
James Madison discussed that provision of the Articles of Confederation in Federalist 42. Madison wrote: "those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of free citizens of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State...." James Madison (March 16, 1751 – June 28, 1836), an American politician and fourth President of the United States of America (1809–1817), was one of the most influential Founders of the United States. ...
Likewise, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 80 that the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the proposed federal Constitution involves controversies between a state and a citizen of another state. Thus, the idea that the Privileges and Immunities Clause generally dictates how a state must treat its own citizens has been rejected since the eighteenth century. Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 or 1757–July 12, 1804) was an Army officer, lawyer, Founding Father, American politician, leading statesman, financier and political theorist. ...
It should also be noted that, throughout Federalist 42, Madison repeatedly used the word "privileges" interchangeably with the word "rights."
History between ratification and the Civil War In the federal circuit court case of Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D.Pa. 1823) Justice Bushrod Washington determined that the protections provided by the clause are confined to privileges and immunities which are, "in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign." Corfield v. ...
External link Biography from the OYEZ Project Categories: People stubs | 1762 births | 1829 deaths | U.S. Supreme Court justices ...
In his explanation of the scope of the rights protected by the clause, Justice Washington included the right to travel through states, the right of access to the courts, the right to purchase and hold property, and an exemption from higher taxes than state residents pay. The Corfield case involved the rights of an out-of-state citizen, rather than the rights of an in-state citizen, and Justice Washington's opinion did not suggest that this provision of the Constitution addresses how a legislature must treat its own citizens. The Berlin Wall restricted freedom of movement between East and West Germany after WWII Freedom of movement, mobility rights or the right to travel is a human rights concept which is respected in the constitutions of numerous Western states. ...
Property designates those things that are commonly recognized as being the possessions of a person or group. ...
Another pertinent federal circuit court case was decided by Justice Henry Baldwin, who succeeded Justice Washington. In the case of Magill v. Brown, 16 Fed. Cas. 408 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1833), Justice Baldwin addressed the Privileges and Immunities Clause: "We must take it therefore as a grant by the people of the state in convention, to the citizens of all the other states of the Union, of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of this state." Henry Baldwin (January 14, 1780 - April 21, 1844) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from January 18, 1830, to April 21, 1844. ...
These federal circuit court statements by Justices Washington and Baldwin were not inconsistent with each other. They both became the settled doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court after the Civil War.
History after the Civil War In the case of Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1868), the Court said the following: It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws. It has been justly said that no provision in the Constitution has tended so strongly to constitute the citizens of the United States one people as this. Indeed, without some provision of the kind removing from the citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in the other States, and giving them equality of privilege with citizens of those States, the Republic would have constituted little more than a league of States; it would not have constituted the Union which now exists. But the privileges and immunities secured to citizens of each State in the several States, by the provision in question, are those privileges and immunities which are common to the citizens in the latter States under their constitution and laws by virtue of their being citizens. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision. It was not intended by the provision to give to the laws of one State any operation in other States. They can have no such operation, except by the permission, express or implied, of those States. This section of Paul v. Virginia is still good law, and was relied upon, for example, in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). However, other portions of Paul v. Virginia were reversed in U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944). Holding §11450. ...
The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents interstate discrimination, but only with regard to basic rights. For example, the Court has asked: "Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause?" See Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Comm'n, 436 U.S. 371 (1978) (the Court answered "no").
The Court has always adhered to the principle that the Privileges and Immunities Clause has no bearing on how a state must treat its own citizens. In-state residents "have no claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause." United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984). Holding A city can pressure private employers to hire city residents, but the same exercise of power to bias private contractors against out-of-state residents may be called into account under Privileges & Immunities clause. ...
Miscellaneous Unlike the Dormant Commerce Clause, there is no market participant exception to the Privileges and Immunities Clause. That means that even when a state is acting as a producer or supplier for a marketable good or service, the Privileges and Immunities Clause may prevent it from discriminating against non-residents.[1] The Dormant Commerce Clause is a phrase that originated with a comment made by Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Willson v. ...
The term market participant is used in United States constitutional law to describe a U.S. State which is acting as a producer or supplier of a marketable good or service. ...
Sources - Farber, Daniel A.; Eskridge, William N., Jr.; Frickey, Philip P. Constitutional Law: Themes for the Constitution's Third Century. Thomson-West Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-314-14353-X
- Hall, Kermit L. ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Second Edition. Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 0195118839
The University of Oxford, located in the city of Oxford in England, is the oldest university in the English-speaking world. ...
External links - The Founders’ Constitution provides source materials regarding the original meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- Findlaw describes case law relevant to the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
|
Feeds |
Contact