Privileges and Immunities Clause

Privileges and Immunities Clause. Found in Article Four of the United States Constitution, this provision prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of their own residents. It is a foundational element of the constitutional architecture designed to foster national unity and ensure a form of equal protection among citizens of the several states. While its scope has been interpreted more narrowly than some analogous provisions, it remains a critical guarantee against certain forms of state parochialism.

Text of the Clause

The clause states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." It is located in Article IV, Section 2, and is distinct from the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, which employs the phrase "privileges or immunities." This textual placement underscores its role in regulating interstate relations rather than defining the relationship between individuals and the federal government. The framers, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, embedded it within the articles concerning state obligations.

Historical Background and Intent

The clause's origins lie in the Articles of Confederation, which contained a similar provision in its fourth article. Delegates at the Philadelphia Convention, seeking to strengthen the national union, incorporated a more robust version into the new Constitution. Influential figures like George Mason and Edmund Randolph debated its contours, with the intent to prevent states from treating outsiders as aliens. Historical commentary, such as that in The Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist No. 80 by Alexander Hamilton, argued it was essential for cementing the states into "one nation." Its purpose was to ensure commercial and social reciprocity, preventing a return to the economic balkanization experienced under the Articles of Confederation.

Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court of the United States first substantively interpreted the clause in Corfield v. Coryell (1823), where Justice Bushrod Washington defined the protected privileges as those fundamental rights which belong to the citizens of all free governments. A more restrictive modern standard was established in Paul v. Virginia (1869), which held the clause only guarantees citizens of one state the same rights as citizens of another when visiting. Key twentieth-century cases, such as Toomer v. Witsell (1948) and United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Camden (1984), established a two-tier test for violations, requiring discrimination against non-residents on matters of fundamental rights or important economic activities. The Court, under Chief Justices like Earl Warren and William Rehnquist, has consistently declined to expand it into a broad guarantee of equal protection.

Distinction from Other Constitutional Clauses

This clause is often confused with the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, which was largely neutered by the Slaughter-House Cases (1873). While the Article IV clause governs interstate discrimination, the Fourteenth Amendment clause was intended to protect citizens' rights from state abridgment. It also functions alongside the Dormant Commerce Clause, which limits state laws that unduly burden interstate commerce, as seen in cases like H.P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond (1949). Furthermore, it is distinct from the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to all persons and is not limited to interstate discrimination against citizens.

Modern Application and Significance

Today, the clause is primarily invoked in challenges to state laws that impose residency requirements or higher fees on non-residents for access to state resources or employment. Significant modern cases include Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper (1985), which opened the state's bar examination to non-residents, and Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal (1998), concerning state income tax deductions. It remains a vital, though limited, tool for promoting economic mobility and national citizenship, ensuring a citizen of California has basic access to the courts and commercial opportunities in Florida. Its enforcement upholds the constitutional vision of a unified common market, a principle championed by figures like John Marshall Harlan II in his dissents. Category:United States constitutional law Category:Article Four of the United States Constitution Category:Civil rights and liberties in the United States