Individual Rights Flashcards
P&I vs. P or I Clause
The privileges AND immunities clause in article IV prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state residents
The privileges OR immunities clause in the 14th amendment prevents the states from mistreating their own citizens
The Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV, Section 2
- State must treat out-of-state residents the same as in-state residents regarding “fundamental” rights
a. access to the courts
b. right to pursue common
calling
c. right to own property - States can have some different rules for out-of-state residents, no complete ban
- The P&I clause protects people, not corporations
United Building v. Camden - Facts, Holding, and Dissent
- Camden made an ordinance, at least 40% of the workers working on public projects needed to reside in Camden
- Did this to give jobs to locals
Court holds:
1. Guarantee of jobs to camden residents means jobs denied to out of state residents, infringing on the right to common calling.
2. Remanded to determine if state reason is good enough
Blackmun Dissent:
1. Most of the workers impacted are inside NJ
2. We should reserve the P&I clause for issues of state law
United Building v. Camden - Test for P&I
- Is there a fundamental right, a right fundamental to interstate harmony, that’s been denied to out-of-state residents?
- Does the state have a good enough reason to engage in that discrimination?
White - Case Comparison to Camden
- DCC issue, city requiring hiring of locals was held constitutional because state was a market participant.
- The court found market participant exception because the city was funding the projects entirely, meaning those employed by the contractors were “substantially, if informally, working for the city”
- Here, similar facts, but a P&I issue is raised instead
McBurney v. Young
Facts:
1. Virginia limited free access to certain state records to residents
2. Sellers of information sued Virginia for equal access, right to a common calling
J. Alito:
1. Governments did not provide info to people at the founding
2. We’re examining fundamental right as if this was 1789
Key Takeaway:
States CAN discriminate on non-fundamental rights as long as they are not completely banning out-of-state residents from something
P&I vs DCC
P&I
1. Protects humans
2. Deals with and protects fundamental rights
3. Congress cannot change
4. Unifies the nation as “one citizen”
DCC
1. Protects corporations And humans
2. Deals with movement of goods
3. Protects against discriminatory treatment
4. Can be overruled by congress
5. Unifies the national economy
Dred Scott, Holdings
Holdings
1. Slaves and descendants are not citizens
2. Congress lacks power under the constitution to prohibit slavery in the new territories west of the mississippi
Both holdings reversed by the 13th and 14th amendments
Dred Scott, Takeaways and Aftermath
Takeaways:
1. J. Curtis left the court in protest, dissenting that the Constitution necessarily accommodated slavery for ratification and did not force its adoption
2. J. Taney argued the exact opposite leading to the civil war.
3. The framers left civil rights up to the states, after the civil war the feds ensure protection
The Civil Rights Cases - Facts, Holdings, and dissent
- Multiple cases involving violations of the civil rights act
- Affirmed the equality of enjoyment of transportation, hotels and inns, theaters, and places of public amusement
Court held
1. 14th amendment does not apply, because it only applies to state action (“state action” requirement)
2. Denying service in the instant establishments does not amount to subjecting one to involuntary servitude
Dissent, Harlan: Societal attempts to impede the freedom of movement amount to involuntary servitude, and the 14th amendment therefore does apply
Shelley v. Kraemer - state action on the most minimal involvement of government
Restrictive covenant on the property restricting race, neighbors sue to enforce the covenant
Holding and Rule: The action of courts ruling on an issue amounts to state action
Edmonson v. Leesville concrete - Facts, Rule, and Holding
Facts:
1. Concrete worker injured, sues employer for negligence, employer used two peremptory challenges to remove two african american jurors (one remained)
2. P requested the court have D provide a race-neutral reason for the challenges. Court denied. SCOTUS grants cert.
Holding: Leesville’s actions violate 14th amndmt under the Lugar test.
Rule: A private litigant in a civil case may not use peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on account of their race because the exercise or peremptory challenges invokes state action.
The Lugar Test (Existence of state action)
- Has the state created the circumstances to allow the private actor to discriminate?
- In all fairness could the private actor be considered a state actor? Measured by
a. The extent to which actor relies on gov assistance and benefits
b. Whether the actor is performing a traditional government function
c. Whether the injury caused is aggravated in a unique way by the incidents of government authority
Entwinement
- Even though private people are acting on their own and the state has not enabled them, the state has nevertheless gotten wrapped up too much
- Example: All of the private individuals discriminating are members of the public school system = state action
Rights Analysis
- Is a right being infringed?
- What is it? (P&I or PorI)
- Who’s infringing?
a. State action (police, government passes a law)
b. private individual seen as state actor (Lugar)
c. entwinement
