Privileges & Immunities Clause

Question 1

Goal of the P&I Clause?

Answer 1

Interstate Equality (Harmonizing the several states into a single national entity)

Question 2

Who is protected by the P&I Clause?

Answer 2

U.S. Citizens. Not corporations or aliens

Question 3

What Privileges and Immunities are protected?

Answer 3

Fundmamental Interests.

i.e. “protection by the government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with theright to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to obtain happiness and safety, subject…to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.”

Question 4

True/False: A challenge under P&I requires facial discrmination. Why?

Answer 4

TRUE. Supreme court has never held if a discriminatory impact is sufficient.*

*You could potentially make an argument for why impact would be sufficient.

Question 5

True/False: The P&I Clause provides an absolute protection to citizens from facially discriminatory laws? Why?

Answer 5

FALSE. A statute will be allowed if the state can prove a substantial reason for facially discriminating against out-of-state citizens and there is a substantial relationship between their objective and the means.

Question 6

Toomer v. Witsell: Holding & Takeaway

Answer 6

Holding:

South Carolina Statute charging more to out-of-state shrimping boats is unconstitutional under the P&I Clause. Fish conservation counts as a substantial reason for statute, but the statute did not adequately further that reason because there were less restrictive means

Takeaways:

1. Conducting business in other states is a privilege protected by P&I Clause.
2. P&I isn’t an absolute ban on facially discriminatory laws.

Question 7

United Building & Construction Trades Council of Camden County v. Mayor & Council of the City
of Camden:Holding and Takeaways

Answer 7

Holding:

Camden statute requiring 40% of Constructino employees must be from Camden may be unconstitutional under P&I Clause; remanded for further fact-finding.

Takeaways:

1. P&I Clause applies to Municipal & Local Ordinances as well as State laws
2. An ordinance is not immune from theP&I Clause merely because some in-state residents are similarly disadvantaged in terms of the fundamental right of the pursuit of a common calling.

Question 8

Lester Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commn. Of Montana: Holding and Takeaways

Answer 8

Holding:
Montana statute requiring higher fees for hunting licenses for out-of-state citizens is not within the purview of the P&I Clause, and so it’s upheld.

Takeaway:

1. Recreational activities typically do not fall into scope of P&I Clause

Question 9

Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Kathryn A. Piper: Holding and Takeaways

Answer 9

Holding:

New Hampshire statute prohibiting out-of-state citizens to practice law found unconstitutional under P&I Clause. The availability of less restrictive alternatives means they failed test of “substantiality” such that the means chosen bear the necessary relationship to the state’s objectives.

Takeaway:

1. Court considers the practice of law as an in category for P&I purposes because it involves pursuit of livelihood

Question 10

Three fundamental interests the court in Lester v. Baldwin specifically recognizes as protected by the P&I Clause.

Answer 10

1. The pursuit of common callings
2. Owning property,
3. Access to courts of that state