The Privileges and Immunities Clause - Oct. 17 Flashcards
What does the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV provide? (Q)
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, also known as the Comity Clause, provides that citizens of each state are entitled to all of the privileges and immunities of citizens in the remaining states. This clause prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-state citizens without a constitutionally valid justification.
What is a fundamental right under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV? (Q)
For purposes of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, fundamental rights typically involve civil or commercial liberties, such as the right to conduct business within a state, the right to own private property within a state, and the right to access a state’s courts. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that there is no fundamental right to engage in a recreational activity.
Under what circumstances may a state deprive out-of-state residents a fundamental right under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV? (Q)
States denying out-of-state citizens fundamental rights must offer a substantial reason for the discrimination under Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause. The substantial reason must go beyond the mere fact that the subjects of the discrimination are from another state. Instead, a discriminating state must show that nonresidents are a peculiar source of the evil the challenged law seeks to remedy. Once it has advanced this substantial justification, the state must then show a reasonable relationship between the evil that is exacerbated or caused by the nonresidents and the discrimination the challenged law imposes upon them.
What does the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit? (Q)
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state governments from unreasonably interfering with the rights of national citizenship. The clause is interpreted narrowly to protect only a handful of rights, such as the right to interstate travel and the right to reside in any state.
In an attempt to discourage people who need welfare benefits from moving to the state, a state adopted a law that limited the social-welfare benefits available to new residents. For the first 12 months in the state, a new resident could only collect half the welfare benefits available to longer-term residents. After the 12-month waiting period, new state residents became eligible to receive full social-welfare benefits. A new state resident filed a complaint arguing that the state’s policy of temporarily restricting state welfare benefits for new residents violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Is the new resident correct? (Q)
Yes. The new resident is correct. The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects the fundamental right to travel. The right to travel includes the right to move to a new state and be treated the same as longer-term residents. U.S. citizens may choose their state of residence; states do not get to choose their citizens. Because state laws that disfavor new state residents impact a fundamental right (the right to travel), these laws are reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard. To be valid, the law must:
advance a compelling state interest and
be narrowly tailored to directly advance that interest.
Here, the law’s purpose is to try to deter certain citizens from moving to the state. This cannot be a compelling state interest that justifies impairing the fundamental right to travel. Thus, the new resident is correct that this law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
A state prohibited out-of-state residents from being admitted to the state’s bar unless they sat for the state’s full bar exam, even if the out-of-state resident was experienced and licensed to practice law in a different state. However, if the attorney had established residency in the state, then the state would admit an experienced attorney to the state bar on motion, without taking the bar exam. A lawyer lived out-of-state but worked for a corporation that had its corporate headquarters in the state. The lawyer sought to be admitted to the state bar on motion, but the state told her that she must sit for the full bar exam. The lawyers argued the state’s action violated the her rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause found in Article IV, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Is the lawyer correct? (Q)
Yes. The attorney is correct. The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects privileges and immunities that are fundamental to interstate harmony and the vitality of the nation as a single entity. This includes the privilege of pursuing a trade or profession. If a non-resident can show a denial of a protected privilege or immunity, then the burden shifts to the state to show:
a substantial reason for the discrimination and
that the discrimination bears a substantial relationship to the state’s objective.
Here, the ability to practice law is a protected privilege and this state partially denies that privilege to non-residents. Thus, the burden shifts to the state to justify the denial. The fact that someone is a non-resident is not a substantial justification for having discriminatory bar-admission standards. Accordingly, the state’s action violated the lawyer’s rights and she is correct.
