Framework for Protection of Individual Liberties 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, such as those involving important commercial activities 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.
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 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 14th 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 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. 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.
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 EPC (as well as the 14th 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 SS 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.
A city council passed an ordinance providing: “No person may contribute more than $100 annually to any group organized for the specific purpose of supporting or opposing referenda to be voted on by the city electorate or regularly engaging in such activities.”
If the ordinance is challenged in federal court, how should the court rule on the constitutionality of this ordinance?
A - Strike it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.
B - Strike it down as a violation of due process, because no hearing mechanism has been provided for.
C - Uphold it, because the city council has a legitimate interest in controlling such contributions.
D - Dismiss the case, because it involves a political question and is thus a nonjusticiable matter.
(A) The federal court should strike the ordinance for violating the First Amendment. While the government may limit the amount of contributions that an individual can contribute to a candidate’s campaign (to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption), the government may not limit the contributions to a political committee that supports or opposes a ballot referendum, because such a law does not serve a sufficiently important interest to outweigh the restraints that it puts on the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.
(B) is incorrect because the Due Process Clause does not require that every law provide for a hearing, but rather only those laws involving the deprivation of life, liberty, or property of an individual. The law here does not involve a deprivation of life or property, and liberty is not being denied to individuals on a judicial basis (i.e., according to the facts of each case), but rather is being denied to all persons on a legislative basis. In such a case, individual hearings are not required to satisfy due process; as long as the law was lawfully adopted (e.g., with notice to all interested parties), the Due Process Clause has been satisfied.
