BlundersoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates Part4

2011DanGoodman TheauthorhaswrittenonthreeblundersoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnited States.Originally,hedecidedtowriteononlytwomistakesmadebytheSupreme CourtoftheUnitedStates.However,theauthorhasreconsideredafterwriting aboutthethirdblunderoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatestonotplaceany limitonthenumberofblundershefindswiththeSupremeCourtoftheUnited States. ThefourthblunderoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesisinthecaseof Haguev.CommitteeforIndustrialOrganiztionet.al.(307U.S.496,1939).The blunderoccursatpage511: ...Thephraseprivilegesandimmunities[is]usedinArticleIV,2ofthe Constitution,whichdecreesthatTheCitizensofeachStateshallbeentitledtoall PrivilegesandImmunitiesofCitizensintheseveralStates. Atonetimeitwasthoughtthatthissectionrecognizedagroupofrightswhich, accordingtothejurisprudenceoftheday,wereclassedasnaturalrights;andthat thepurposeofthesectionwastocreaterightsofcitizensoftheUnitedStatesby guaranteeingthecitizensofeveryStatetherecognitionofthisgroupofrightsby everyotherState.SuchwastheviewofJusticeWashington. WhilethisdescriptionofthecivilrightsofthecitizensoftheStateshasbeen quotedwithapproval,ithascometobesettledviewthatArticleIV,2doesnot importthatacitizenofoneStatecarrieswithhimintoanotherfundamental privilegesandimmunitieswhichcometohimnecessarilybythemerefactofhis citizenshipintheStatefirstmentioned,but,onthecontrary,thatinanyStateevery citizenofanyotherStateistohavethesameprivilegesandimmunitieswhichthe citizensofthatStateenjoy.Thesection,ineffect,preventsaStatefrom discriminatingagainstcitizensofotherStatesinfavorofitsown.[Footnote1]
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5456152533472609432&q

Andatfootnote1totheopinionofJusticeStonewhichstates: ...And[theSlaughterHouseCases]heldthattheprotectionoftheprivileges 1

andimmunitiesclausedidnotextendtothosefundamentalrightsattachedtostate citizenshipwhicharepeculiarlythecreationandconcernofstategovernmentsand whichMr.JusticeWashington,inCorfieldv.Coryell,4Wash.C.C.371,6Fed.Cas.No. 3230,mistakenlythoughttobeguaranteedbyArticleIV,2oftheConstitution.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5456152533472609432&q

Accordingtothiscase,ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionofthe UnitedStatesofAmerica,givestoacitizenofanyotherStatethesameprivileges andimmunitieswhichthecitizensofaparticularStateenjoy.Theseprivilegesand immunitiesarecommonprivilegesandimmunities.Specialprivilegesand immunitiesgrantedbyaparticularStatetoitsowncitizensarenotincluded. ItisconcludedimplicitlyinthiscasethatArticleIV,Section2,Clause1ofthe Constitutionservesonlyonepurpose.Twopropositionsarepresented.Onone handisthatArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionisaprovisionthat recognizesfundamentalprivilegesandimmunities.Ontheotherhand,theclause grantscommonprivilegesandimmunitiestothecitizensofsisterStateswhenthey areinanotherState. However,botharecorrect!ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1isthesourcefor commonprivilegesandimmunitiesaswellasfundamentalprivilegesand immunities. ThecaseofCorfieldv.Coryelldescribesfundamentalprivilegesandimmunities underArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution: Thenextquestionis,whetherthisActinfringesthatsectionoftheConstitution whichdeclaresthatthecitizensofeachStateshallbeentitledtoallprivilegesand immunitiesofcitizensintheseveralStates? Theinquiry,iswhataretheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensintheseveral States?Wefeelnohesitationinconfiningtheseexpressionstothoseprivilegesand immunitieswhicharefundamental.Corfieldv.Coryell:6Fed.Cas.(CaseNo.3230) 546,at550(1825).[Footnote2]
http://books.google.com/books?id=pwA7AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA550#v=onepage&q&f=false

ThecaseoftheStateofTennesseev.Claibornespecifiescommonprivilegesand immunitiesunderArticleIV,Section2,Clause1: ThecitizensofeachStateshallbeentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunities 2

ofcitizensintheseveralStates,saystheConstitution.Thecitizensherespokenof arethosewhoareentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizens.... ...Hence,inspeakingoftherightswhichacitizenofoneStateshouldenjoy ineveryotherState...,itisveryproperlysaidthatheshouldbeentitledtoallthe privilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensinsuchotherState.Themeaningofthe languageis,thatnoprivilegeenjoyedby,orimmunityallowedto,themostfavored classofcitizensinsaidStateshallbewithheldfromacitizenofanyotherState. StateofTennesseev.Claiborne:10Tenn.(1Meigss)255,at261thru262(1838).

http://books.google.com/books?id=yXcLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q&f=false

InWardv.StateofMaryland,theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates,writesthe following,onfundamentalprivilegesandimmunities: Attemptwillnotbemadetodefinethewordsprivilegesandimmunities,orto specifytherightswhichtheyareintendedtosecureandprotect,beyondwhatmay benecessarytothedecisionofthecasebeforethecourt.Beyonddoubtthosewords arewordsofverycomprehensivemeaning,butitwillbesufficienttosaythatthe clauseplainlyandunmistakablysecuresandprotectstherightofacitizenofone StatetopassintoanyotherStateoftheUnionforthepurposeofengaginginlawful commerce,trade,orbusinesswithoutmolestation;toacquirepersonalproperty;to takeandholdrealestate;tomaintainactionsinthecourtsoftheState;andtobe exemptfromanyhighertaxesorexcisesthanareimposedbytheStateuponitsown citizens.[Footnote3] ...[T]heConstitutionprovidesthatthecitizensofeachStateshallbeentitledto allprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensintheseveralStates.Wardv.Stateof Maryland:79U.S.(12Wall.)418,at430(1870).
http://books.google.com/books?id=6X0AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA430#v=onepage&q&f=false

InPaulv.StateofVirginia,theSupremeCourtstatesthefollowingoncommon privilegesandimmunities: [T]heprivilegesandimmunitiessecuredtocitizensofeachStateintheseveral States,bytheprovisioninquestion,arethoseprivilegesandimmunitieswhichare commontothecitizensinthelatterStatesundertheirconstitutionandlawsby virtueoftheirbeingcitizens.Paulv.StateofVirginia:75U.S.(8Wall.)168,at180 (1868).

http://books.google.com/books?id=bwGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA180#v=onepage&q&f=false

IntheSlaughterhouseCases,itiswritten: Thefirstoccurrenceofthewordsprivilegesandimmunitiesinour constitutionalhistory,istobefoundinthefourthofthearticlesoftheold Confederation. Itdeclaresthatthebettertosecureandperpetuatemutualfriendshipand intercourseamongthepeopleofthedifferentStatesinthisUnion,thefree inhabitantsofeachoftheseStates,paupers,vagabonds,andfugitivesfromjustice excepted,shallbeentitledtoalltheprivilegesandimmunitiesoffreecitizensinthe severalStates;andthepeopleofeachStateshallhavefreeingressandregressto andfromanyotherState,andshallenjoythereinalltheprivilegesoftradeand commerce,subjecttothesameduties,impositions,andrestrictionsasthe inhabitantsthereofrespectively. IntheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,whichsupersededtheArticlesof Confederation,thecorrespondingprovisionisfoundinsectiontwoofthefourth article,inthefollowingwords:ThecitizensofeachStateshallbeentitledtoallthe privilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheseveralStates. Therecanbebutlittlequestionthatthepurposeofboththeseprovisionsisthe same,andthattheprivilegesandimmunitiesintendedarethesameineach.Inthe articleoftheConfederationwehavesomeofthesespecificallymentioned,and enoughperhapstogivesomegeneralideaoftheclassofcivilrightsmeantbythe phrase. Fortunatelywearenotwithoutjudicialconstructionofthisclauseofthe Constitution.ThefirstandtheleadingcaseonthesubjectisthatofCorfieldv. Coryell,decidedbyMr.JusticeWashingtonintheCircuitCourtfortheDistrictof Pennsylvaniain1823. Theinquiry,hesays,is,whataretheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizens oftheseveralStates?Wefeelnohesitationinconfiningtheseexpressionsto thoseprivilegesandimmunitieswhicharefundamental;whichbelongof righttothecitizensofallfreegovernments,andwhichhaveatalltimesbeen enjoyedbycitizensoftheseveralStateswhichcomposethisUnion,fromthe timeoftheirbecomingfree,independent,andsovereign.... ThisdefinitionoftheprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheStatesis adoptedinthemainbythiscourtintherecentcaseofWardv.TheStateofMaryland, whileitdeclinestoundertakeanauthoritativedefinitionbeyondwhatwas necessarytothatdecision.Thedescription,whentakentoincludeothersnot named,butwhichareofthesamegeneralcharacter,embracesnearlyeverycivil rightfortheestablishmentandprotectionofwhichorganizedgovernmentis 4

instituted.Theyare,inthelanguageofJudgeWashington,thoserightswhichare FUNDAMENTAL.Throughouthisopinion,theyarespokenofasrightsbelongingto theindividualasacitizenofaState.Theyaresospokenofintheconstitutional provisionwhichhewasconstruing.Andtheyhavealwaysbeenheldtobetheclass ofrightswhichtheStategovernmentswerecreatedtoestablishandsecure. InthecaseofPaulv.Virginia,thecourt,inexpoundingthisclauseofthe Constitution,saysthattheprivilegesandimmunitiessecuredtocitizensofeach StateintheseveralStates,bytheprovisioninquestion,arethoseprivilegesand immunitieswhichareCOMMONtothecitizensinthelatterStatesundertheir constitutionandlawsbyvirtueoftheircitizens. Theconstitutionalprovisiontherealludedtodidnotcreatethoserights,whichit calledprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheStates.Itthrewaroundthemin thatclausenosecurityforthecitizenoftheStateinwhichtheywereclaimedor exercised.NordiditprofesstocontrolthepoweroftheStategovernmentsoverthe rightsofitsowncitizens. ItssolepurposewastodeclaretotheseveralStates,thatwhateverthoserights,as yougrantorestablishthemtoyourowncitizens,orasyoulimitorqualify,or imposerestrictionsontheirexercise,thesame,neithermorenorless,shallbethe measureoftherightsofcitizensofotherStateswithinyourjurisdiction. Itwouldbethevainestshowoflearningtoattempttoprovebycitationsof authority,thatuptotheadoptionoftherecentamendments,noclaimorpretence wassetupthatthoserightsdependedontheFederalgovernmentfortheirexistence orprotection,beyondtheveryfewexpresslimitationswhichtheFederal ConstitutionimposedupontheStatessuch,forinstance,astheprohibitionagainst expostfactolaws,billsofattainder,andlawsimpairingtheobligationsofcontracts. Butwiththeexceptionoftheseandafewotherrestrictions,theentiredomainof theprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensoftheStates,asabovedefined,lay withintheconstitutionalandlegislativepoweroftheStates,andwithoutthatof theFederalgovernment.SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at75thru 77(1873).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q&f=false

TheSlaughterhouseCourtdefinedprivilegesandimmunitiesunderArticleIV, Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericatoinclude fundamentalprivilegesandimmunitiesASWELLAScommonprivilegesand immunities. Inaddition,thereisthefollowingfromthedissentingopinionofJusticeFields: Theterms,privilegesandimmunities,arenotnewinthe[Fourteenth] 5

amendment;theywereintheConstitutionbeforetheamendmentwasadopted. Theyarefoundinthesecondsectionofthefourtharticle,whichdeclaresthatthe citizensofeachStateshallbeentitledtoallprivilegesandimmunitiesofcitizensin theseveralStates,andtheyhavebeenthesubjectoffrequentconsiderationin judicialdecisions.InCorfieldv.Coryell,Mr.JusticeWashingtonsaidhehadno hesitationinconfiningtheseexpressionstothoseprivilegesandimmunitieswhich were,intheirnature,FUNDAMENTAL;whichbelongofrighttocitizensofallfree governments,andwhichhaveatalltimesbeenenjoyedbythecitizensoftheseveral StateswhichcomposetheUnion,fromthetimeoftheirbecomingfree,independent, andsovereign.... Theprivilegesandimmunitiesdesignatedinthesecondsectionofthefourth articleoftheConstitutionare,then,accordingtothedecisioncited,thosewhichof rightbelongtothecitizensofallfreegovernments,andtheycanbeenjoyedunder thatclausebythecitizensofeachStateintheseveralStatesuponthesameterms andconditionsastheyareenjoyedbythecitizensofthelatterStates.No discriminationcanbemadebyoneStateagainstthecitizensofotherStatesintheir enjoyment,norcananygreaterimpositionbeleviedthansuchasislaiduponits owncitizens.Itisaclausewhichinsuresequalityintheenjoymentoftheserights betweencitizensoftheseveralStateswhilstinthesameState. NoristhereanythingintheopinioninthecaseofPaulv.Virginia,whichatall militatesagainsttheseviews....[T]hecourtobserved,thattheprivilegesand immunitiessecuredby[ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1]werethoseprivilegesand immunitieswhichwereCOMMONtothecitizensinthelatterStates,undertheir constitutionandlaws,byvirtueoftheirbeingcitizens;thatspecialprivileges enjoyedbycitizensintheirownStateswerenotsecuredinotherStatesbythe provision;thatitwasnotintendedbyittogivetothelawsofoneStatesany operationinotherStates;thattheycouldhavenosuchoperationexceptbythe permission,expressedorimplied,ofthoseStates;andthatthespecialprivileges whichtheyconferredmust,therefore,beenjoyedathomeunlesstheassentofother Statestotheirenjoymentthereinweregiven.... Thewholepurportofthedecisionwas,thatcitizensofoneStatedonotcarry withthemintootherStatesanyspecialprivilegesorimmunities,conferredbythe lawsoftheirownStates,ofacorporateorothercharacter.Thatdecisionhasno pertinencytothequestionsinvolvedinthiscase.Thecommon(shouldbe, fundamental)privilegesandimmunitieswhichofrightbelongtoallcitizens,stand onaverydifferentfooting.ThesethecitizensofeachStatedocarrywiththeminto otherStates.Thisequalityinoneparticularwasenforcedbythiscourtintherecent caseofWardv.TheStateofMaryland,reportedinthe12thofWallace. SlaughterhouseCases:83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at97thru100(dissentingopinionof JusticeFields)(1873).
http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thus,ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesof Americahasbothcommonprivilegesandimmunitiesaswellasfundamental privilegesandimmunities. ________________________ Footnotes: 1.ThisisreaffirmedinBaldwinet.alv.FishandGameCommissionofMontanaet.al. (436U.S.371,1978)atpage380.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10129499138166717934&q

2.TheopinioninthecaseofCorfieldv.Coryellwasdeliveredintheyearof1825. Theparagraphprecedingtheopinionstates: Thiscasewasargued,onthepointsoflawagreedbythecounseltoariseonthe facts,attheOctoberterm1824,andwastakenunderadvisementuntilAprilterm 1825,whenthefollowingopinionwasdelivered.Corfieldv.Coryell:6Fed.Cas. (CaseNo.3230)546,at550(1825).

http://books.google.com/books?id=pwA7AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA550#v=onepage&q&f=false

3....[I]nWardv.Maryland,12Wall.418,430,thecourt,afterreferringto Corfieldv.Coryell,abovecitied,andspeakingbyMr.JusticeClifford,statedthatthe righttomaintainactionsinthecourtsoftheStatewasfundamentalandwas protectedbytheconstitutionalclauseinquestion(ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1) againststateenactmentsthatdiscriminatedagainstcitizensofotherStates. Chambersv.Baltimore&OhioRailroadCompany:207U.S.142,151,at154157 (JusticeHarlan,JusticeWhiteandJusticeMcKenna;concurringinpart,dissentingin part)(1907).[Footnote4]

http://books.google.com/books?id=huAGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q&f=false

4.Atpage151,itstatesthattheopinionofMr.JusticeHarlan(withwhom 7

concurredMr.JusticeWhiteandMr.JusticeMcKenna)isdissenting.However,this iswrong.IntheopinionJusticeHarlanwrites,atpage154: ...Icordiallyassenttowhatissaiduponthispointintheopinionjust deliveredforthemajorityofthecourt.

http://books.google.com/books?id=huAGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA154#v=onepage&q&f=false