Slaughter-House Cases


Also found in: Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

Slaughter-House Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Slaughter-House cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), was the first High Court decision to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been ratified in 1870. In a controversial decision, the Court, on a 5–4 vote, interpreted the privileges and immunities clause of the amendment as protecting only rights of national citizenship from the actions of the state government. This restrictive reading robbed the Privileges and Immunities Clause of any constitutional significance.The case involved three lawsuits filed by Louisiana meat-packing companies, challenging a Louisiana state law that allowed one meat company the exclusive right to slaughter livestock in New Orleans. Other packing companies were required to pay a fee for using the slaughterhouses. The state justified this Monopoly as a way to prevent health risks to people who lived near slaughterhouses, at a time when there was no refrigeration and no way to control insects. The company that was awarded the monopoly and accompanying financial windfall was politically connected to state legislators, inviting charges of corruption.

The three companies filed suit, claiming that the law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued that this clause protected the right to labor freely. The Louisiana law restricted their freedom to butcher meat. Their challenge was unsuccessful in state court, after which they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court affirmed the state court. Justice samuel f. miller, writing for the majority, ruled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause had limited effect because it only reached privileges and immunities guaranteed by U.S. citizenship, not state citizenship. The clause was meant only to prohibit a state from restricting the rights of noncitizens within its borders if it did not similarly limit the rights of its citizens. Miller noted that because the action challenged privileges of state citizenship, the Privileges and Immunities Clause did not apply.

Some of the rights of national citizenship enumerated by Miller included the right to travel from state to state, the right to vote for federal officeholders, the right to petition Congress to redress grievances, and the right to use the writ of Habeas Corpus. Any restriction on these national rights of citizenship by a state would be unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In the case of the meat packers, however, the Court concluded that no national citizenship right was at stake.

Miller also expressed concern that an expansive reading of the Privileges and Immunities Clause would shift too much power to the federal courts and Congress. In his view the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to grant former slaves legal equality, not to grant expanded rights to the general population. The concept of Federalism, which grants the states a large measure of power and autonomy, played a role in the majority's decision. The Court reasoned that Congress and the states could not have contemplated the expansion of federal power as argued by the meat packers.

The four dissenting justices thought otherwise, believing that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to do more than just protect the newly freed slaves. Justice stephen j. field, in a dissent joined by the other justices, maintained, "The privileges and immunities designated are those which of right belong to the citizens of all free governments." He saw the clause as a powerful tool to keep state government out of the affairs of business and the economy.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause no longer had any constitutional impact. The Supreme Court came to rely on the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect persons from unconstitutional actions by state government.

Further readings

Scarborough, Jane L. 1998. "What If the Butchers in the Slaughter-House Cases Had Won? An Exercise in 'Counterfactual' Doctrine." Maine Law Review 50 (July).

Wildenthal, Bryan H. 2001. "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Slaughter-House Cases: An Essay in Constitutional-Historical Revisionism." Thomas Jefferson Law Review 23 (spring).

Cross-references

Due Process of Law; Equal Protection.

References in periodicals archive ?
(39) But the parenthetical holdings in the Slaughter-House Cases
A judicial abomination like the Slaughter-House Cases is not an act of judicial moderation, but a virtual repeal of one of the most important and meaningful provisions of our Constitution.
this Part analyzes the seminal Slaughter-House Cases and the effects of
Recent scholarship on the Slaughter-House Cases has corrected one historiographical stereotype: that the Louisiana legislation challenged in the cases, which granted an exclusive franchise to the Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughtering Company, created a monopoly and was passed by a corrupt legislature.
As Chief Justice John Roberts noted from the bench during Gura's argument, "this argument is contrary to the Slaughter-House Cases, which have been the law for 140 years.
While all of these cases--the Slaughter-House Cases, the Civil Rights Cases, and Plessy--are disappointing by current human rights standards, they also gave rise to a strong dissenting tradition in American constitutional law.
A main theme of the book is how the Supreme Court, in the Slaughter-House cases, adopted the northern Democratic view.
It was in 1873, thirty years before the dawn of the present century, that the Supreme Court killed off the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause in the notorious Slaughter-House Cases.(9) As I'm sure you all know, the 14th Amendment provides that "[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."(10) And the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that the natural, civil, and political rights of the individual would be within the power of the national government to protect.
Rather, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases, the Fourteenth Amendment requires that states respect the right of each citizen of the United States "to become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens of that State." [34] The Saenz plaintiffs argued that the principle of free interstate migration, and the concomitant right of United States citizens to settle on equal terms in whatever state they choose, "are necessarily bound together" with this structural aim of the Constitution.
It was only following the Civil War with the Slaughter-House Cases,(6) that the Court attempted to discern the meaning behind those broad phrases of the Fourteenth Amendment--"privileges and immunities," "equal protection," and "due process"--and limits began to emerge.
742, 808 (2010) (Thomas, J., concurring); The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S.
This is essentially the view that was taken by the four dissenters in the Slaughter-House Cases. (246)