🦢Constitutional Law I Unit 17 – The Privileges and Immunities Clause

Historical Context and Origins

• The Privileges and Immunities Clause has its roots in the Articles of Confederation, which aimed to ensure equal treatment of citizens across states
• Included in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution as part of the Comity Clause
• Drafted to promote unity and prevent discrimination among citizens of different states
• Reflects the Founders' desire to create a cohesive nation where citizens could freely travel and conduct business across state lines
• Influenced by the political philosophy of federalism, which sought to balance state and national powers
• Incorporated into the Constitution as a response to the economic and political challenges faced under the Articles of Confederation
• Designed to foster a sense of national identity and protect the rights of citizens in a federal system

Key Constitutional Provisions

• Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"
• 14th Amendment, Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
• The Privileges and Immunities Clause is closely related to the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce
• Works in conjunction with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, ensuring recognition of legal documents and judicial proceedings across states
• Complements the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits discrimination by states against citizens
• Interacts with the Dormant Commerce Clause, a judicial doctrine that prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state businesses
• Helps to reinforce the Supremacy Clause, which establishes the Constitution and federal laws as the supreme law of the land

Interpretation and Supreme Court Cases

• The Supreme Court has interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause narrowly, focusing on fundamental rights
• In Corfield v. Coryell (1823), the Court defined privileges and immunities as those rights that are "fundamental" and belong to all citizens
  • This includes the right to travel, the right to pursue a livelihood, and the right to own property
• Paul v. Virginia (1869) established that the Clause does not grant the federal government the power to protect citizens from their own state's actions
• Slaughter-House Cases (1873) further narrowed the scope of the Clause, distinguishing between state and national citizenship
  • The Court held that the Clause only protects a limited set of rights related to national citizenship
• Saenz v. Roe (1999) reaffirmed the right to travel as a fundamental privilege protected by the Clause
  • The Court struck down a California law that limited welfare benefits for new residents
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Clause does not create new rights but rather protects existing fundamental rights

Scope and Limitations

• The Privileges and Immunities Clause applies only to citizens and does not extend to legal permanent residents or other non-citizens
• It does not protect against discrimination by the federal government, only by states
• The Clause does not prohibit all forms of discrimination, only those that affect fundamental rights
  • States may still treat residents and non-residents differently in areas such as taxation, higher education, and recreational hunting and fishing licenses
• The Clause does not guarantee an absolute right to travel, as states may impose reasonable regulations (e.g., driver's licenses, vehicle registration)
• It does not prevent states from regulating professions and occupations, provided the regulations are not discriminatory
• The Clause does not apply to private entities or individuals, only to state actions
• It does not protect economic rights or guarantee a particular standard of living

Application to Modern Issues

• The Privileges and Immunities Clause has been invoked in cases involving same-sex marriage, with couples arguing that states must recognize marriages performed in other states
• It has been cited in challenges to state laws that restrict the ability of out-of-state attorneys to practice law
• The Clause has been used to contest state laws that impose residency requirements for certain professions (e.g., doctors, teachers)
• It has been raised in cases involving state tax policies that treat residents and non-residents differently
• The Clause has been invoked in disputes over state laws that limit access to public resources (e.g., beaches, parks) based on residency
• It has been cited in challenges to state laws that restrict the ability of out-of-state students to attend public universities at in-state tuition rates
• The Clause continues to be relevant in an increasingly mobile society where citizens frequently travel and relocate across state lines

Comparison with Other Constitutional Clauses

• Like the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Commerce Clause aims to promote economic unity and prevent state discrimination
  • However, the Commerce Clause focuses on interstate commerce, while the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects fundamental rights
• The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment also prohibits discrimination, but it applies more broadly to all persons, not just citizens
• The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects individual rights, but it focuses on procedural fairness rather than substantive rights
• The Full Faith and Credit Clause ensures that states respect each other's laws and judicial proceedings, complementing the Privileges and Immunities Clause's goal of national unity
• The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution and federal laws as the supreme law of the land, reinforcing the Privileges and Immunities Clause's protection of national citizenship rights
• The Dormant Commerce Clause, a judicial doctrine, prohibits states from discriminating against interstate commerce, similar to the Privileges and Immunities Clause's aim of preventing state discrimination against out-of-state citizens

Critiques and Controversies

• Some argue that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause too narrowly, limiting its potential to protect individual rights
• Critics contend that the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) severely restricted the Clause's scope and rendered it largely ineffective
• There is debate over what constitutes a "fundamental" right protected by the Clause, with some advocating for a broader interpretation
• The Clause's application to modern issues, such as same-sex marriage and interstate travel restrictions during public health emergencies, remains controversial
• Some argue that the Clause should be used more aggressively to challenge state laws that discriminate against out-of-state residents
• There is disagreement over the extent to which the Clause protects economic rights and whether it should be used to challenge state regulations that burden interstate commerce
• Critics argue that the Clause's focus on citizenship creates a two-tiered system of rights, disadvantaging non-citizens

Practical Implications for Citizens

• The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects the right of citizens to travel freely across state lines without facing discrimination
• It ensures that citizens can pursue a livelihood in any state without facing undue burdens or restrictions based on their state of origin
• The Clause guarantees that citizens can own property and access public resources in other states on the same terms as residents
• It prevents states from imposing discriminatory taxes or fees on out-of-state citizens
• The Clause allows citizens to access the courts and legal systems of other states without facing discrimination
• It ensures that citizens can rely on the recognition of their legal documents (e.g., marriage licenses, driver's licenses) across state lines
• The Privileges and Immunities Clause fosters a sense of national identity and unity by protecting the rights of citizens as they move and interact across state borders