Podcasts about immunities clause

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in National Pork Producers Council v Ross In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a California law that prohibits the in-state sale of pork from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards violate the “dormant” component of the Constitution's Commerce Clause? The case was decided on May 11, 2023 The Supreme Court held that California's Proposition 12 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored an opinion in which a majority of the Court voted to affirm the judgment of the U-SCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. State laws violate the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause when they seek to “build up…domestic commerce” through “burdens upon the industry and business of other States.” An antidiscrimination principle is at the core of the dormant Commerce Clause; an “almost per se” rule against state laws that have extraterritorial effects is unsupported. A state law that does have extraterritorial effects but does not purposefully discriminate does not necessarily violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Under the balancing test established in Pike v Bruce Church, a court must assess “the burden imposed on interstate commerce” by the state law and prevent its enforcement if the law's burdens are “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” A majority of the Court concluded that under this test, Proposition 12 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, concluded that the petitioners failed to plausibly allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce and thus voted with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, concluded that the petitioners did allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce, but the benefits and burdens of Proposition 12 are incommensurable. Chief Justice John Roberts filed an opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Chief Justice Roberts argued that the petitioners did allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce and that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded to the court below to decide whether the petitioners had stated a claim under Pike. Justice Kavanaugh authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, largely agreeing with the Chief Justice but pointing out also that state economic regulations like California's Proposition 12 may raise questions not only under the Commerce Clause, but also under the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

This week we are sharing an episode from our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. In this episode, prize-winning historians Kate Masur, author of Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from the Revolution to Reconstruction, and Dylan Penningroth, author of the new book Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights, explore the central role of African Americans in the struggle for justice and equality long before the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:  Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from the Revolution to Reconstruction (2022)  Dylan Penningroth, Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights (2023)  Article IV, Section 2: Movement Of Persons Throughout the Union, Privileges and Immunities Clause, National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution  14th Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause, National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution  Dylan Penningroth, The Claims of Kinfolk: African American Property and Community in the Nineteenth-Century South (2003)  Kate Masur, An Example for All the Land: Emancipation and the Struggle over Equality in Washington, D.C (2010)  Brief of Professors of History and Law as Amici Curia in Support of Respondents, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and UNC    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling decided The Slaughterhouse Cases, which narrowly interpreted the new Privileges and Immunities Clause of the recently ratified 14th Amendment. With this year marking the 150th anniversary of the decision, we're joined today by two leading scholars to understand what The Slaughterhouse Cases were about, and why some scholars and judges–including current Supreme Court justices like Justice Clarence Thomas–have criticized the decision and its effect on constitutional law doctrines; while others have agreed with its interpretation. Guests Kurt Lash, professor at the University of Richmond Law School, and Kermit Roosevelt, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, join to discuss the history and story of the case; what happened after it was decided; and what would happen in constitutional law today if the case was overturned. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

The past few years have witnessed a flurry of new scholarship related to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the Privileges or Immunities Clause and its associated citizenship declarations. Evan Bernick, a professor at Northern Illinois University, is the co-author with Randy Barnett of “The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter […]

The past few years have witnessed a flurry of new scholarship related to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, particularly the Privileges or Immunities Clause and its associated citizenship declarations. Evan Bernick, a professor at Northern Illinois University, is the co-author with Randy Barnett of "The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit." Christopher Green, a professor at the University of Mississippi, is the author of "Equal Citizenship, Civil Rights, and the Constitution: The Original Sense of the Privileges or Immunities Clause," as well as a review of Evan's book, to which he and Barnett have responded. This historical debate is not merely of academic interest, however. If the Supreme Court were to view the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in a new light, what would the implications be for labor law?Featuring: -- Professor Evan D. Bernick, Assistant Professor, Northern Illinois University-- Professor Christopher R. Green, Associate Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, we're discussing how to identify and work through Privileges and Immunities Clause issues on a law school exam. In this episode we discuss: Distinguishing between the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment What steps to take to identify whether the Privileges and Immunities Clause applies The Dormant Commerce Clause The two requirements that must be met for a state to pass a law violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause Analyzing two hypos, from the February 2005 and July 2018 California bar exams Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/law-school-toolbox-podcast-substantive-law-topics/#listen-learn) Tutoring for Law School Success (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/tutoring-for-law-school-success/) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2005 (https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/February%202005%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2018 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/July2018_CBX.pdf) Podcast Episode 298: Listen and Learn – The Dormant Commerce Clause (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/podcast-episode-298-listen-and-learn-the-dormant-commerce-clause/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-350-listen-and-learn-privileges-and-immunities-clause-con-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Today by special request, we have a great episode that asks How can Substantive Due Process rights be transferred to the privileges and immunities clause. We look at the history of "Privileges & Immunities" from its common law and colonial American beginning, to the Articles Of Confederation, Article 4, Corfield v Coryell and reconstruction era civil rights legislation to inform us of what the Privileges or Immunities clause was understood to mean by those who gave it legal force. We also discuss a general framework under which enumerated and unenumerated rights protected under the due process clause could be transferred to the privileges or immunities clause. Case Briefs and Legal Resources Dobbs v Jackson Whole Women's Health McDonald v. Chicago Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) Slaughterhouse Cases :: 83 U.S. 36 (1872) United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) McDonald v Chicago Amicus Briefs Clarence Thomas McDonald v Chicago Opinion (Edit) Past Episodes Referenced In This Video: Clarence Thomas Is Right Roe v Wade (1973) Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) Follow & Support Show Homepage Rumble Odysee YouTube Anchor Twitter PayPal.me Venmo Contact Me Legalese is a podcast that discusses current events in law, politics & culture. Tags: supreme Court, scotus, due process clause, privileges or immunities clause, 14th amendment, civil rights, clarence thomas, Dobbs, jackson, abortion, originalism, textualism, articles of confederation, article IV, Corfield v Coryell, roe v wade, planned parenthood v casey --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/legaleseshow/support

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, we're discussing how to identify and work through Privileges and Immunities Clause issues on the bar exam. In this episode, we discuss: Distinguishing between the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment What steps to take to identify whether the Privileges and Immunities Clause applies The Dormant Commerce Clause The two requirements that must be met for a state to pass a law violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause Analyzing two hypos, from the February 2005 and July 2018 California bar exams Resources: “Listen and Learn” series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) The Brainy Bar Bank: Streamlining Bar Study (https://barexamtoolbox.com/brainy-bar-bank/) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2005 (https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/February%202005%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2018 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/July2018_CBX.pdf) Podcast Episode 44: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Constitutional Law (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-44-tackling-a-california-bar-exam-essay-constitutional-law/) Podcast Episode 76: Tackling an MEE Con Law Essay Question (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-76-tackling-an-mee-con-law-essay-question/) Podcast Episode 135: Listen and Learn – The Dormant Commerce Clause (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-135-listen-and-learn-the-dormant-commerce-clause/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-174-listen-and-learn-privileges-and-immunities-clause-con-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Privileges or Immunities Clause, which protects the privileges and immunities of national citizenship from interference by the states, was patterned after the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, which protects the privileges and immunities of state citizenship from interference by other states. In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution recognized two separate types of citizenship—"national citizenship" and "state citizenship"—and the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause prohibits states from interfering only with privileges and immunities possessed by virtue of national citizenship. The Court concluded that the privileges and immunities of national citizenship included only those rights that "owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws". The Court recognized few such rights, including access to sea-ports and navigable waterways, the right to run for federal office, the protection of the federal government while on the high seas or in the jurisdiction of a foreign country, the right to travel to the seat of government, the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the right to participate in the government's administration. This decision has not been overruled and has been specifically reaffirmed several times. Largely as a result of the narrowness of the Slaughter-House opinion, this clause subsequently lay dormant for well over a century. In Saenz v Roe (1999), the Court ruled that a component of the "right to travel" is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause: Despite fundamentally differing views concerning the coverage of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, most notably expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), it has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel. Writing for the majority in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Miller explained that one of the privileges conferred by this Clause "is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, 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". (emphasis added) Justice Miller actually wrote in the Slaughter-House Cases that the right to become a citizen of a state (by residing in that state) "is conferred by the very article under consideration" (emphasis added), rather than by the "clause" under consideration. In McDonald v Chicago (2010), Justice Clarence Thomas, while concurring with the majority in incorporating the Second Amendment against the states, declared that he reached this conclusion through the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead of the Due Process Clause. Randy Barnett has referred to Justice Thomas's concurring opinion as a "complete restoration" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In Timbs v Indiana (2019), Justice Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch, in separate concurring opinions, declared the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment was incorporated against the states through the Privileges or Immunities Clause instead of the Due Process Clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Often considered as one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials. The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted to do very little. The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including all non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. This clause has been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion, or other crime" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fourth section was held, in Perry v United States (1935), to prohibit a current Congress from abrogating a contract of debt incurred by a prior Congress. The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation"; however, under City of Boerne v Flores (1997), this power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court decision interpreting the amendment.

McDonald v City of Chicago. On June 28, 2010, the Court in McDonald v City of Chicago, (2010), held that the Second Amendment was incorporated, saying that "t is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition. Four of the five justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the fifth justice, Clarence Thomas, voted to do so through the amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause. Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, noted that the Privileges or Immunities Clause refers to "citizens" whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any "person", and therefore Thomas reserved the issue of non-citizens for later decision. After McDonald, many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether non-citizens are protected through the Equal Protection Clause. In People v Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald: Two years later, in McDonald v City of Chicago, (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense"; that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original)(quoting Heller); and that "self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day". Caetano v Massachusetts. On March 21, 2016, in a per curiam decision the Court vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense. The Court reiterated that the Heller and McDonald decisions saying that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding", that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States", and that the protection is not restricted to "only those weapons useful in warfare". The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v Heller, (2008) and includes any "eapo of offense" or "thing that a man wears for his defense, or takes into his hands", that is "carrying. ... for the purpose of offensive or defensive action". New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v City of New York, New York. The Court heard New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v City of New York, New York on December 2, 2019, to decide whether a New York City ordinance that prevents the transport of guns, even if properly unloaded and locked in containers, from within city limits to outside of the city limits is unconstitutional. The New York Rifle & Pistol Association challenged the ordinance on the basis of the Second Amendment, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the right to travel. However, as the city had changed its rule to allow transport while the case was under consideration by the Court, the Court ruled the case moot in April 2020, though it remanded the case so the lower courts could review the new rules under the petitioner's new claims.

Article Four of the United States Constitution outlines the relationship between the various states, as well as the relationship between each state and the United States federal government. It also empowers Congress to admit new states and administer the territories and other federal lands. The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to extend "full faith and credit" to the public acts, records and court proceedings of other states. The Supreme Court has held that this clause prevents states from reopening cases which have been conclusively decided by the courts of another state. The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires interstate protection of "privileges and immunities," preventing each state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. The Extradition Clause requires that fugitives from justice be extradited on the demand of executive authority of the state from which they flee. Since the 1987 case of Puerto Rico v Branstad, federal courts may also use the Extradition Clause to require the extradition of fugitives. The Fugitive Slave Clause requires the return of fugitive slaves; this clause has not been repealed, but it was rendered moot by the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. The Admissions Clause grants Congress the authority to admit new states, but forbids the creation of new states from parts of existing states without the consent of the affected states. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution requires all states to be admitted on an equal footing, though the Admissions Clause does not expressly include this requirement. The Property Clause grants Congress the power to make laws for the territories and other federal lands. The Guarantee Clause mandates that United States guarantee that all states have a "republican form of government," though it does not define this term. Article Four also requires the United States to protect each state from invasion, and, at the request of a state, from "domestic violence." --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

On March 4-5, 1988, The Federalist Society's University of Virginia student chapter hosted the National Student Symposium in Charlottesville, Virginia. The topic of the conference was "Are There Unenumerated Constitutional Rights? The third panel featured a discussion of "The Modern Role of the Privileges or Immunities Clause."Featuring:Michael K. Curtis, Smith, Patterson, Follin, Curtis, Jones and HarkavyProf. Lino Graglia, University of Texas School of LawProf. Sanford Levinson, University of Texas School of LawClarence Thomas, Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionModerator: Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court gave its first major interpretation of the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The result was a narrow reading of the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause that left intact the basic antebellum understanding of the relationship between the Bill of Rights and the States that we saw in Barron v. Baltimore (1833). However, that understanding began to change in the 20th century when the Supreme Court started incorporating aspects of the Bill of Rights into how it read the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause resurfaces in the Seventh Circuit, where the State of Indiana treated some newcomers differently from some long-time residents. Meanwhile, an Arkansas school district augments a consent decree from the days of school desegregation. But there’s a question of whether it did so for the right reasons. Transcript forthcoming. Hope v. Commissioner of Indiana Department of Correction, http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2021/D01-06/C:19-2523:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2640105:S:0 Junction City School District v. Arkansas Department of Education, https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/12/191340P.pdf Saenz v. Roe, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/489/ Justin Pearson, https://ij.org/staff/justin-pearson/ Robert Peccola, https://ij.org/staff/rpeccola/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org

Is it time for the Supreme Court to spread some privileges or immunities cheer? Michael Bindas discusses a cert petition pending at SCOTUS on navigating the navigable waters, one of the few rights the Court has said the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects. He also tells us about a Ninth Circuit case on COVID orders and religious liberty. Meanwhile, Diana Simpson digs into a very deep dive of a First Circuit opinion on recording the cops in Massachusetts. Turns out the First Amendment protects it. Transcript: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/short-circuit-156.pdf Courtney v. Danner, https://ij.org/case/lake-chelan-ferries/ Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-1586P-01A.pdf Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/12/15/20-16169.pdf Michael Bindas, https://ij.org/staff/mbindas/ Diana Simpson, https://ij.org/staff/diana-simpson/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org

A new petition for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court presents an invaluable opportunity for the Court to revisit the Privileges or Immunities Clause. And it is unlike any opportunity in recent memory. First, it presents a question upon which every theory of the Fourteenth Amendment agrees: Does the Amendment protect a citizen against rights violations perpetrated by that citizen’s own state? The text and history of the provision, as well as Supreme Court precedent, unequivocally say “Yes,” but the lower courts have fundamentally misunderstood the Clause and rendered it impotent against one’s own state. Second, unlike most Privileges or Immunities cases, this case does not ask the Court to overrule the Slaughter-House Cases. Instead it asks for judicial protection of a right expressly recognized in Slaughter-House: the right to use the navigable waters of the United States, a right that was critically important to the freedmen at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification. Thus, unlike recent cases such as McDonald, Timbs, and Ramos, in which the Court was able to avoid confronting the Privileges or Immunities Clause by ruling on alternative grounds, this case begins and ends with the Clause. It therefore offers an opportunity for the Court to begin—in a principled and incremental way—the process of revitalizing the provision that most recognize as the keystone of the Fourteenth Amendment. How have the courts construed this provision since its post-Civil War enactment? What should the Supreme Court do here? And should the oft-criticized Slaughter-House Cases be affirmed?Tune in for a fascinating discussion of the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the unique case of Courtney v. Danner. Counsel of record for the plaintiffs in the case, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice (IJ), and Fourteenth Amendment scholar Christopher Green, Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy at the University of Mississippi School of Law, will join IJ attorney and moderator Adam Griffin for an exciting litigation update.Featuring:-- Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice-- Prof. Christopher Green, Professor of Law and H.L.A. Hart Scholar in Law and Philosophy, University of Mississippi School of Law-- Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice

Kurt Lash comes to Liberty Law Talk to discuss his newest book, The Fourteenth Amendment: The Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship. If you think the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873 gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause of constitutional meaning and set us on our present course of strangely incorporating the Bill of Rights through the […]

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the third showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel explored the question "Does Originalism Protect Unenumerated Rights?".Does the original meaning of any constitutional provision protect fundamental rights? Substantive Due Process had been a target of originalists, but is it fair to dismiss it as an oxymoron? And even if Due Process does not have a substantive component, does the Privileges or Immunities Clause provide a justification for a fundamental right jurisprudence?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young UniversityProf. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Gary S. Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawHon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society, The Federalist Society

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the third showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel explored the question "Does Originalism Protect Unenumerated Rights?".Does the original meaning of any constitutional provision protect fundamental rights? Substantive Due Process had been a target of originalists, but is it fair to dismiss it as an oxymoron? And even if Due Process does not have a substantive component, does the Privileges or Immunities Clause provide a justification for a fundamental right jurisprudence?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie H. Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young UniversityProf. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Gary S. Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawHon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin C. Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitIntroduction: Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society, The Federalist Society

The Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 to empower the federal government -- including particularly federal courts -- to stamp out a culture of lawless tyranny and oppression in the South by enforcing basic civil rights of newly freed blacks and their white supporters. This culture of oppression took many forms, including widespread censorship, the systematic disarmament of freedmen and white unionists, and the wholesale denial of economic liberty. At the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment was the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which the Supreme Court effectively deleted from the Constitution in the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases. Today, that judicial error continues to take its toll on important freedoms like private property and the right to earn an honest living, which receive virtually no protection from courts despite their obvious importance to ensuring the economic autonomy of the freedmen following the Civil War and all Americans today. http://www.ij.org/cje

On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The first panel discussed "The Original Understanding of 'Privileges of Immunities'".Scholars contest the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1873, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to state economic regulations under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases. Since then, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been best known as a “practical nullity.” However, Justice Thomas provided a strong challenge to this interpretation in his McDonald v. City of Chicago concurrence.This panel explores whether the Fourteenth Amendment was principally concerned with equality, guaranteeing fundamental rights, or both. If the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee fundamental rights, does it merely incorporate the bill of rights against the states, or does it do more and provide protections for economic liberty? And was the Amendment intended to accomplish these purposes through a substantive notion of “due process” or through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Is the fundamental-rights view inconsistent with judicial restraint? This panel will discuss these fundamental questions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning, and whether maintaining an expansive notion of substantive due process or resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be an ill-conceived invitation to judicial activism.Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown LawProf. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Visiting Assistant Professor, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of LawProf. Rebecca E. Zietlow, Charles W. Fornoff Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of LawModerator: Judge Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On March 15-16, 2019, the Federalist Society's student chapter at the ASU Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law hosted the 2019 National Student Symposium. The first panel discussed "The Original Understanding of 'Privileges of Immunities'".Scholars contest the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1873, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to state economic regulations under the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Slaughter-House Cases. Since then, the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been best known as a “practical nullity.” However, Justice Thomas provided a strong challenge to this interpretation in his McDonald v. City of Chicago concurrence.This panel explores whether the Fourteenth Amendment was principally concerned with equality, guaranteeing fundamental rights, or both. If the Fourteenth Amendment does guarantee fundamental rights, does it merely incorporate the bill of rights against the states, or does it do more and provide protections for economic liberty? And was the Amendment intended to accomplish these purposes through a substantive notion of “due process” or through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Is the fundamental-rights view inconsistent with judicial restraint? This panel will discuss these fundamental questions concerning the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning, and whether maintaining an expansive notion of substantive due process or resurrecting the Privileges or Immunities Clause would be an ill-conceived invitation to judicial activism.Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown LawProf. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Visiting Assistant Professor, ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of LawProf. Rebecca E. Zietlow, Charles W. Fornoff Professor of Law and Values, University of Toledo College of LawModerator: Judge Amul R. Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

In Timbs v. Indiana today, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines is incorporated against the states under the Due Process Clause -- not the Privilege and Immunities Clause -- of the 14th Amendment. In doing so, the Court explicitly rejected Indiana’s argument that a civil forfeiture is not a “fine” and thus its “excessiveness” may not be reviewed. The Court’s ruling has significant implications for the practice of civil forfeiture in the United States, for broader criminal justice policy, and for constitutional interpretation.Vikrant Reddy joins us to discuss the decision and its implicationsFeaturing: Vikrant Reddy, senior research fellow, Charles Koch Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

In Timbs v. Indiana today, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines is incorporated against the states under the Due Process Clause -- not the Privilege and Immunities Clause -- of the 14th Amendment. In doing so, the Court explicitly rejected Indiana’s argument that a civil forfeiture is not a “fine” and thus its “excessiveness” may not be reviewed. The Court’s ruling has significant implications for the practice of civil forfeiture in the United States, for broader criminal justice policy, and for constitutional interpretation.Vikrant Reddy joins us to discuss the decision and its implicationsFeaturing: Vikrant Reddy, senior research fellow, Charles Koch Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Rob Tracinski talks with Ilya Shapiro, director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, about the Timbs v. Indiana ruling and the possible revival of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The conversation includes: the rise of Originalism, how the Constitution incorporates the theory of natural rights, how the Supreme Court split apart economic freedom from other rights, the potential for the return of pre-New Deal jurisprudence, and the difference between the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause. For more commentary and analysis, visit The Tracinski Letter at www.TracinskiLetter.com. Support us at patreon.com/SalonoftheRefused.

In this episode, Ilya Shapiro, Director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, discusses his article "The Once and Future Privileges or Immunities Clause," which he co-authored with Josh Blackman, and which will be published in the George Mason Law Review. Shapiro explains the origin of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment and how it relates to the Due Process Clause. He describes the history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, and how the Reconstruction-era Court largely read it out of the Constitution in the Slaughterhouse Cases. And he reflects on the recent revival of interest in the Privileges or Immunities Clause, driven both by legal scholarship and by Justice Thomas's opinions in cases like McDonald v. Chicago. Shapiro is on Twitter at @ishapiro. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

[Click here for Episode 1.] In 1873, the Supreme Court said that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects a right to “use the navigable waters of the United States”—and not much else. But in the nearly 150 years since, the Court has never examined what the right to use the navigable waters means in practice. On this episode: a pair of brothers from Stehekin, Washington, try to change that. Click here for transcript. Available on iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, and Stitcher.

[Click here for Episode 1.] In 1873, the Supreme Court said that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects a right to “use the navigable waters of the United States”—and not much else. But in the nearly 150 years since, the Court has never examined what the right to use the navigable waters means in practice. On this episode: a pair of brothers from Stehekin, Washington, try to change that. Click here for transcript. Available on iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, and Stitcher.

In 1873, the Supreme Court said that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects a right to “use the navigable waters of the United States”—and not much else. But in the nearly 150 years since, the Court has never examined what the right to use the navigable waters means in practice. On this episode: a pair of brothers from Stehekin, Washington, try to change that.

In 1873, the Supreme Court said that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects a right to “use the navigable waters of the United States”—and not much else. But in the nearly 150 years since, the Court has never examined what the right to use the navigable waters means in practice. On this episode: a pair of brothers from Stehekin, Washington, try to change that.

[Click here for Episode 1. And click here for Episode 2.] The Privileges or Immunities Clause was meant to be one of the key liberty-protecting provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Clause says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” That sounds like a big deal, right? It's not. The Clause has been virtually read out of the Constitution, and for people trying to vindicate their civil rights in court, it's been of little practical use. That story—the near redaction of the Clause—begins with the Slaughterhouse Cases, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1873. On Episode Three of Bound By Oath: What rights were the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment seeking to protect through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? And what happened to the Clause? Click here for transcript. Click for iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, and Stitcher.

[Click here for Episode 1. And click here for Episode 2.] The Privileges or Immunities Clause was meant to be one of the key liberty-protecting provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Clause says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” That sounds like a big deal, right? It's not. The Clause has been virtually read out of the Constitution, and for people trying to vindicate their civil rights in court, it's been of little practical use. That story—the near redaction of the Clause—begins with the Slaughterhouse Cases, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1873. On Episode Three of Bound By Oath: What rights were the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment seeking to protect through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? And what happened to the Clause? Click here for transcript. Click for iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, and Stitcher.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause was meant to be one of the key liberty-protecting provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Clause says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” That sounds like a big deal, right? It’s not. The Clause has been virtually read out of the Constitution, and for people trying to vindicate their civil rights in court, it’s been of little practical use. That story—the near redaction of the Clause—begins with the Slaughterhouse Cases, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1873. More resources here: https://ij.org/sc_long_podcast/all-but-redacted-the-privileges-or-immunities-clause/

The Privileges or Immunities Clause was meant to be one of the key liberty-protecting provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Clause says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” That sounds like a big deal, right? It’s not. The Clause has been virtually read out of the Constitution, and for people trying to vindicate their civil rights in court, it’s been of little practical use. That story—the near redaction of the Clause—begins with the Slaughterhouse Cases, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1873. On Episode Three of Bound By Oath: What rights were the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment seeking to protect through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? And what happened to the Clause? More resources here: https://ij.org/sc_long_podcast/all-but-redacted-the-privileges-or-immunities-clause/

The Constitution contains a number of provisions designed to protect economic liberty, including the contracts clause, the takings clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clauses, and others. The structure of the constitution and the negative commerce clause also protect economic freedom. This reflects the founders support for limited government, private property and freedom of commerce. Please join us for a discussion of the constitutional protections for economic freedom and the original meaning of these constitutional provisions.For a complete list of speakers, topics, and dates of the Free Markets: The Ethical Economic Choice speaker series visit heritage.org/free-markets. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Minor v. Happersett (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant anyone, and in this case specifically a female citizen of the state of Missouri, a right to vote even when a state law granted rights to vote to a certain class of citizens. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state's laws allowed only men to vote. The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote. The Nineteenth Amendment, which became a part of the Constitution in 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett by prohibiting discrimination in voting rights based on gender. Minor v. Happersett continued to be cited in support of restrictive election laws of other types until the 1960s, when the Supreme Court started interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to prohibit discrimination among citizenry in voting rights. Information sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett Body sourced from youtu.be/FCl2BmbqCRM Public Access America PublicAccessPod Productions Footage downloaded and edited by Jason at PublicAccessPod producer of Public Access America Podcast Links Review us Stitcher: goo.gl/XpKHWB Review us iTunes: goo.gl/soc7KG Subscribe GooglePlay: goo.gl/gPEDbf YouTube goo.gl/xrKbJb YouTube

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv ~  The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of theReconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly bySouthern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such asRoe v. Wade (1973), regarding abortion, and Bush v. Gore (2000), regarding the 2000 presidential election. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official. The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, Section 2's reference to "rebellion and other crimes" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fifth section gives Congress enforcement power. The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little.    

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv ~  The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of theReconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly bySouthern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such asRoe v. Wade (1973), regarding abortion, and Bush v. Gore (2000), regarding the 2000 presidential election. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official. The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, Section 2's reference to "rebellion and other crimes" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement. The fifth section gives Congress enforcement power. The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little.    

In his new book, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship, Prof. Lash presents the history surrounding the addition of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. This exhaustively researched book follows the evolution in public understanding of “the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States,” from the early years of the Constitution to the critical national election of 1866. For the first 92 years of our nation's history, nothing in the American Constitution prevented states from abridging freedom of speech, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or denying the right of peaceful assembly. The suppression of freedom in the southern states convinced the Reconstruction Congress and the supporters of the Union to add an amendment forcing the states to respect the rights announced in the first eight amendments. But rather than eradicate state autonomy altogether, the people embraced the Fourteenth Amendment that expanded the protections of the Bill of Rights and preserved the Constitution's original commitment to federalism and the principle of limited national power.Pressor Kurt Lash, Guy Raymond Jones Chair in Law and Director, Program in Constitutional Theory, History, and Law is joined by critical commenter Elizabeth Price Foley, Professor of Law at the Florida International University School of Law.

In his new book, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship, Prof. Lash presents the history surrounding the addition of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. This exhaustively researched book follows the evolution in public understanding of “the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States,” from the early years of the Constitution to the critical national election of 1866. For the first 92 years of our nation's history, nothing in the American Constitution prevented states from abridging freedom of speech, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or denying the right of peaceful assembly. The suppression of freedom in the southern states convinced the Reconstruction Congress and the supporters of the Union to add an amendment forcing the states to respect the rights announced in the first eight amendments. But rather than eradicate state autonomy altogether, the people embraced the Fourteenth Amendment that expanded the protections of the Bill of Rights and preserved the Constitution's original commitment to federalism and the principle of limited national power.Pressor Kurt Lash, Guy Raymond Jones Chair in Law and Director, Program in Constitutional Theory, History, and Law is joined by critical commenter Elizabeth Price Foley, Professor of Law at the Florida International University School of Law.