Federalism Flashcards
Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, __________.
Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, states may not discriminate against nonresidents regarding fundamental rights-i.e., those involving important commercial activities (such as pursuit of a livelihood) or civil liberties-absent a substantial justification: i.e., the state shows that nonresidents either cause or are part of the problem the state is attempting to solve, and that there are no less restrictive means to solve the problem. For example, states may not charge nonresident commercial fishermen substantially more for a license than they charge residents absent substantial justification.
While it is true that states may not deny their own citizens rights of national citizenship, this rule comes from the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than from the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Corporations are NOT protected as well as natural persons under the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause. The Clause has been held to extend only to natural persons.
Aliens are NOT protected as well as citizens under the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause. The Clause has been held to extend only to citizens.
What does the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause protect?
The Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from denying their citizens the rights of national citizenship, such as the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances, the right to vote for federal officers, the right to enter public lands, the right to interstate travel, and any other right flowing from the distinct relation of a citizen to the United States Government.
Corporations, aliens, and legal residents are not citizens of the United States and are not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause.
The Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from infringing upon their citizens’:
The Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from denying their citizens the rights of national citizenship, which includes the right to travel. Other rights protected include the right to petition Congress for redress of grievances, the right to vote for federal officers, and the right to enter public lands.
Freedom of speech is not a right of national citizenship under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In The Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court held that rights of national citizenship do not include all of the rights in the Bill of Rights, although some rights under the Bill of Rights may be held applicable to the states as incidents of due process.
The right to earn a living is not a right of national citizenship under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, although the right is protected under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which limits states from discriminating against nonresidents.
The right to an attorney is not a right of national citizenship under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the right is included in the Bill of Rights under the Sixth Amendment, as discussed above, the Supreme Court held in The Slaughterhouse Cases that rights of national citizenship do not include the Bill of Rights.
If a state tax on interstate commerce discriminates against a natural person who is a nonresident, which of the following Clauses is least likely to be relevant in determining whether the tax is valid?
The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would not apply to a state tax on interstate commerce that discriminates against a natural person who is a nonresident. It applies when a state denies its own citizens rights of national citizenship.
The Commerce Clause would be relevant in determining the validity of a state tax on interstate commerce that discriminates against a natural person who is a nonresident. The negative implications of the Commerce Clause (or “the Dormant Commerce Clause”) prohibit taxes that discriminate against nonresidents.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV would be relevant in determining the validity of a state tax on interstate commerce that discriminates against a natural person who is a nonresident. This Clause prohibits a state from discriminating against nonresidents regarding commercial activities.
The Equal Protection Clause would also be relevant in determining the validity of a state tax on interstate commerce that discriminates against a natural person who is a nonresident. This Clause prohibits states from unreasonably discriminating among similarly situated people.
Commercial fishing has long been one of the major industries of a coastal state. To protect the fishing industry and to promote the general welfare of the state’s citizens, the legislature of the state enacted statutes requiring licenses for commercial fishing. An applicant for the license must pay a $300 fee and establish that he has been engaged in commercial fishing in the waters of the state for 10 years. A commercial fisherman residing in a neighboring state frequently takes his fishing boat up the coast. His favorite spot is approximately two miles off the coast of the legislating state.
If the commercial fisherman challenges the constitutionality of the legislating state’s statutes, should the court find the statutes constitutional?
The court should not find the statutes constitutional, because less restrictive means are available. The statutes violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which prohibits discrimination against nonresidents with respect to essential activities (e.g., pursuing a livelihood) unless (i) the discrimination is closely related to a substantial state purpose, and (ii) less restrictive means are not available. Here, other controls could be placed on fishing without discriminating against out-of-state fishermen. (A) is wrong because, even though Congress has not acted in this area, the statutes would still be unconstitutional in light of the negative implications of the “dormant” Commerce Clause. Congressional silence is, therefore, irrelevant. (B) states a due process test which, even if applicable, would not preclude a finding of unconstitutionality on other grounds. (D) is wrong because the activity here does not involve foreign commerce-this is a dispute between one state and a citizen of another state.
A state law prohibits physicians from practicing medicine within the state without a state license. Among other things, the grant of a state license requires a physician to have been a resident of the state for at least one year. A physician moved to the state from a nearby state and immediately applied for a license to practice medicine. Although otherwise qualified, the physician’s request for a license was denied based on the residency requirement. The physician brought suit, alleging that the residency requirement violated the United States Constitution.
Will the physician likely succeed?
The physician will succeed. The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying their citizens the privileges and immunities of national citizenship. This includes the right to travel, and the Court has held that the right to travel includes the right of newly arrived citizens to enjoy the same privileges and immunities as are enjoyed by other citizens of the state. A state law that distinguishes between new residents solely on the length of their residency will serve no legitimate state interest. Thus, a law limiting medical licenses to persons who have resided in the state for a year runs afoul of the clause. (A) is incorrect. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV prohibits discrimination by a state against nonresidents. Here, the physician is a resident of the state discriminating against him. Hence, the Article IV privileges and immunities protection does not apply. (C) is not as good an answer as (B) because the law here involves discrimination based on duration of residency-making the Privileges or Immunities Clause more direct. (D) is incorrect because duration of residency does not impact the welfare of residents.
A state statute provided that only residents of the state can be granted a license to practice medicine within the state. The statute was passed after a series of well-publicized mistakes by a nonresident physician led to a public consensus that nonresidents were less likely to be familiar with the medical standards followed in the state, making them more likely to commit malpractice. A respected surgeon who lived and was licensed in a neighboring state was offered and accepted the position of chief surgeon at a hospital in the state with the residency statute. Because he lived only 20 minutes away from the hospital, he did not wish to move. He filed an action in federal court challenging the residency requirement, alleging that the statute discriminated against nonresidents in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.
Is the federal court likely to find that the statute is constitutional?
The statute is likely unconstitutional because the statute is not necessary to achieve an important government purpose (put another way, state does not have a substantial justification for the statute). The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV protects against discrimination by a state in favor of its own citizens when it affects a fundamental right, such as the pursuit of a livelihood. Any statute that results in such discrimination violates the Clause unless the state shows that it has a substantial justification for the discriminatory treatment. In effect, it must show that nonresidents either cause or are part of the problem it is attempting to solve, and that there are no less restrictive means to solve the problem. Here, the state statute clearly discriminates against nonresidents in favor of residents. The reason offered by the state to justify the discrimination, i.e., that nonresident physicians are less likely to be familiar with the medical standards imposed by the state, does not meet the test of necessary to achieve an important government purpose. The state can find less restrictive means to ensure that all physicians are familiar with its medical standards. Accordingly, (A) is incorrect. (B) is incorrect, because a “privilege” under the Privileges and Immunities Clause includes those professions that are important to the national economy, which the practice of medicine clearly is. (D) is incorrect because it states the wrong standard. The state does not have to show a compelling interest for the discrimination. It must show an “important” one, a lower standard.
A state located in the southern half of the United States experienced a strong influx of retirees, due in part to its mild winters and in part to the generous health benefits that the state historically provided to its elderly residents who fell below the federal poverty line. The state’s Office of Budget Management determined that the influx of retirees would bankrupt the state’s health care benefit fund within five years. To preserve the fund and ensure the health of its citizens, the state revised its health care statute to make persons ineligible for coverage until they have lived in the state for at least one year.
If a retiree who was denied benefits because she just moved to the state challenges the constitutionality of the statute in federal court, is she likely to prevail?
The court will likely find that the one-year residency requirement is unconstitutional because it burdens the right to travel. An individual has a fundamental right to travel from state to state, and a state law that is designed to deter persons from moving into the state is likely to violate the Equal Protection Clause (as well as the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause). When a state uses a durational residency requirement (a waiting period) for dispensing benefits, that requirement normally should be subject to the strict scrutiny test, and usually will be found not to have satisfied the test. One such requirement that has been invalidated on this basis is a one-year waiting period for state-subsidized medical care, such as the one here. [See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County (1974)] (A) is incorrect. The Supreme Court has specifically held that a state’s interest in fiscal integrity is not sufficient to justify a one-year waiting period for welfare or health benefits. (B) contains a true statement-the states have no constitutional duty to provide health care benefits for those below the poverty line. However, once a state chooses to provide such benefits, it may not do so in a manner that violates the Constitution, and, as explained above, the restriction here violates the right to travel. (D) is incorrect because the privileges and immunities protection of Article IV prohibits discrimination by a state against nonresidents when fundamental national rights are involved. Here, the restriction differentiates between residents. While that could violate the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause, Article IV is not implicated.
