Podcasts about slaughterhouse cases

In this episode, we are joined by Assistant Professor of Law Lucien Ferguson  (Chicago-Kent College of Law) to discuss the ambiguities of freedom and labor in the constitutional interpretation of the Reconstruction Amendments that were passed after the US Civil War. Our discussion is guided by the landmark Slaughter-House Cases of 1873 that narrowly construed the federal rights protected by the 14th amendment and set the stage for the failure of Reconstruction at the end of the 19th century. We discuss the divergences between liberal and republican accounts of freedom, whether the constitution should remain the grammar for leftist political strategy, and how the collapse of reconstruction shapes debates around citizenship and belonging to this day.leftofphilosophy.com | @leftofphil | @leftofphilosophy.bsky.social References:William E. Forbath, “The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age” Wisconsin Law Review 4 (1985): 767-817. Music:“Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN

This Day in Legal History: Salmon P. Chase DiesOn May 7, 1873, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase died, ending one of the most unusual legal and political careers in American history. Chase had been an antislavery lawyer, a U.S. senator, governor of Ohio, Abraham Lincoln's secretary of the Treasury, and then Chief Justice of the United States. He was also one of the many talented and ambitious men around Lincoln who did not begin as an admirer of him. Before Lincoln became president, Chase had encountered him as a lawyer and reportedly did not think much of him, viewing him as a rough western attorney rather than a national figure. After Lincoln defeated him for the Republican nomination in 1860, Chase had reason to believe a summons to the White House might be an occasion for Lincoln to enjoy the victory. Instead, Lincoln offered him one of the most important jobs in the government: secretary of the Treasury.It was a revealing moment in Lincoln's political genius, because he was willing to place a rival who had underestimated him in a position of enormous responsibility during the Civil War. Chase helped finance the Union war effort and became closely associated with the creation of a national banking system and the issuance of paper currency. In 1864, Lincoln elevated him again by appointing him Chief Justice of the United States.As Chief Justice, Chase presided over the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, a major constitutional test of presidential power and congressional authority. Near the end of his life, Chase dissented in the Slaughter-House Cases, one of the first major Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's majority read the Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause narrowly, limiting a provision that many had hoped would become a strong source of federal protection for civil rights. Chase's dissent placed him on the side of a broader understanding of Reconstruction's constitutional promise. His death mattered not only because of the offices he held, but because it came at a moment when the Supreme Court was deciding whether the Civil War amendments would transform American law or be read down almost as soon as they were adopted.Apple customers have asked a California federal judge to preliminarily approve a proposed $250 million settlement over claims that Apple overstated the artificial intelligence features available on the iPhone 16. The proposed class includes people who bought any iPhone 16 model or certain iPhone 15 models between June 10, 2024, and March 29, 2025. The customers allege Apple advertised enhanced Siri capabilities as part of its Apple Intelligence rollout even though those features were not yet available. Under the settlement, eligible class members who submit valid claims would receive $25 per device, with payments possibly rising to $95 per device depending on participation. Apple is also expected to provide additional Siri-related Apple Intelligence updates in the future at no extra cost.The plaintiffs said settlement made sense because AI-related consumer claims are still legally novel and would carry risk if the case continued. Apple had argued that its marketing was not deceptive because it had already released many Apple Intelligence features and had disclosed that other features would arrive over time. The case began in March 2025 and later became part of a consolidated set of related lawsuits in the Northern District of California. The parties conducted discovery, consulted experts, and participated in three full-day mediation sessions before reaching the proposed deal. Plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek up to $70 million in fees, plus up to $600,000 in expenses. The settlement does not resolve separate securities or shareholder cases claiming Apple misled investors about the timing of the Siri rollout. Apple said it settled to remain focused on developing products and services, while maintaining that it has already introduced numerous Apple Intelligence tools.Apple Reaches $250M Deal Over Claims It Overhyped IPhone AI - Law360Bayer has agreed to acquire Perfuse Therapeutics, a San Francisco biopharma company, in a deal worth up to $2.45 billion. The transaction gives Bayer full rights to PER-001, a drug candidate in phase-two clinical development for glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Bayer will pay $300 million upfront, with the rest tied to development, regulatory, and sales milestones. Perfuse focuses on treatments that improve blood flow to the retina, with the goal of addressing conditions that can lead to blindness. Bayer said the acquisition strengthens its ophthalmology pipeline and supports its effort to develop new therapies for serious eye diseases.The deal is being handled legally by Baker McKenzie for Bayer, with partners Alan Zoccolillo, Oren Livne, and Jieun Tak leading the team. Goodwin Procter is advising Perfuse. The transaction still needs antitrust clearance and approval from Perfuse shareholders. Bayer is being advised financially by BofA Securities, while Centerview Partners is advising Perfuse. Bayer and Perfuse said glaucoma could affect about 112 million people by 2040, while diabetic retinopathy could affect 160 million people by 2045.Baker McKenzie-Led Bayer To Buy Perfuse For Up To $2.45B - Law360 UKThe California Supreme Court is considering whether drugmakers can be held legally responsible for stopping development of a potentially safer drug while continuing to sell an already-approved medication. The case involves Gilead Sciences and roughly 24,000 HIV patients who took drugs containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, or TDF. TDF-based drugs received FDA approval in 2001, but they were associated with possible kidney and bone side effects. Gilead later began developing a related drug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, or TAF, which patients say had fewer side effects. The company stopped developing TAF in 2004, arguing that it was not different enough from TDF to justify further investment.The patients claim Gilead delayed TAF for business reasons, including to protect TDF sales and time TAF's release around the expiration of TDF patents. Gilead argues that allowing the negligence claims to proceed would punish companies for researching possible improvements and could discourage innovation. The company says the lower court rulings effectively create a “duty to innovate,” even when the drug already on the market is not alleged to be defective. The patients respond that the case is not about forcing endless research, but about whether Gilead unreasonably delayed a safer alternative for profit. A ruling for the patients could expand product-liability exposure for pharmaceutical companies, while a ruling for Gilead could limit claims based on decisions not to commercialize drugs still in development.California's highest court to consider whether drugmakers have ‘duty to innovate' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Privileges and/or Immunities, Necessary and/or Proper, and Cruel and/or Unusual, with guest Clark Neily. 00:00 Introduction and Disclaimer 00:37 Congress Approval Ratings Hit 10% 02:08 King Charles on Checks and Balances 03:17 Is Congress Failing Its Constitutional Role? 04:19 Jimmy Kimmel Controversy and Media Fallout 06:05 Foolishness of the Week: Trump Passport Idea 08:13 Clark Neily Joins the Show 09:28 Comey Indictment and “8647” Controversy 12:11 Legal Interpretation and Prosecutorial Overreach 16:03 Is There a Growing Skepticism of Qualified Immunity? 17:58 What Qualified Immunity Actually Means 19:57 Absolute Immunity for Prosecutors Explained 23:44 Supreme Court Trends and Recent Rulings 24:19 Birthright Citizenship Debate 30:06 Constitutional Interpretation and “Cruel and Unusual” 34:07 Incorporation Doctrine and the 14th Amendment 40:28 Slaughterhouse Cases and Missed Legal Turning Point 45:35 Why Courts Resist Expanding Individual Rights 48:56 Supreme Court Power and Constitutional Limits Debate 50:59 Commerce Clause Expansion and Federal Overreach 57:51 Closing Discussion and Wrap-Up Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Privileges and/or Immunities, Necessary and/or Proper, and Cruel and/or Unusual, with guest Clark Neily. 00:00 Introduction and Disclaimer 00:37 Congress Approval Ratings Hit 10% 02:08 King Charles on Checks and Balances 03:17 Is Congress Failing Its Constitutional Role? 04:19 Jimmy Kimmel Controversy and Media Fallout 06:05 Foolishness of the Week: Trump Passport Idea 08:13 Clark Neily Joins the Show 09:28 Comey Indictment and “8647” Controversy 12:11 Legal Interpretation and Prosecutorial Overreach 16:03 Is There a Growing Skepticism of Qualified Immunity? 17:58 What Qualified Immunity Actually Means 19:57 Absolute Immunity for Prosecutors Explained 23:44 Supreme Court Trends and Recent Rulings 24:19 Birthright Citizenship Debate 30:06 Constitutional Interpretation and “Cruel and Unusual” 34:07 Incorporation Doctrine and the 14th Amendment 40:28 Slaughterhouse Cases and Missed Legal Turning Point 45:35 Why Courts Resist Expanding Individual Rights 48:56 Supreme Court Power and Constitutional Limits Debate 50:59 Commerce Clause Expansion and Federal Overreach 57:51 Closing Discussion and Wrap-Up Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

what if you were never actually a U.S. citizen... legally? and what if your “identity” was tied to a contract you didn't knowingly sign? BUCKLE UP for a mind-bending, paradigm-warping conversation that invites you to question... everything. not from fear, but from sovereignty. especially when it comes to the unconscious contracts we enter into with systems we barely understand. in this episode, i sit down with Brandon Joe Williams to explore: the difference between state and federal citizenship why the 14th Amendment changed everything (but maybe not how you think) the legal definitions of “person,” “individual,” and “citizen” how language has been weaponized to shape compliance and identity and the ways we can break free from chains we didn't even know we had!  ⚠️ PRO TIP: watch on YouTube to see brandon's screen shares as he reads directly from legal documents and court cases (link to watch here).    connect with Brandon Joe Williams: website: https://one-stupid-fuck.com instagram: @iambrandonjoewilliams facebook: Brandon Joe Williams youTube: Brandon Joe Williams https://www.williamsandwilliamslawfirm.com/   want to go deeper? i host monthly SOUL SYMPOSIUMS, share private transmissions, and explore topics like this inside my patreon — a digital sanctuary for critical thinking, spiritual inquiry, and sacred questioning. if you want my full commentary on conversations like this... ...join my inner circle → https://www.patreon.com/eringunzelman/membership (drop in. linger. lurk. start a conversation. cancel anytime.) other ways to work with erin:

To find Brandon's work—> OneStupidFuck.comTo sign up for our Patreon go to-> Patreon.com/cultofconspiracypodcast To Join the Cajun Knight Patreon---> Patreon.com/cajunknight To Find The Cajun Knight Youtube Channel---> click hereTo Invest In Gold & Silver, CHECK OUT—-> Www.Cocsilver.com 10% OFF Rife Machine---> https://rifemachine.myshopify.com/?rfsn=7689156.6a9b5c To find the Meta Mysteries Podcast---> https://open.spotify.com/show/6IshwF6qc2iuqz3WTPz9Wv?si=3a32c8f730b34e79 50% OFF Adam&Eve products---> :adameve.com (promo code : CULT) To Sign up for our Rokfin go to --> Rokfin.com/cultofconspiracy Cult Of Conspiracy Linktree ---> https://linktr.ee/cultofconspiracy

This Day in Legal History: Salmon P. Chase DiesOn May 7, 1873, Salmon P. Chase—former Chief Justice of the United States and one of the most prominent legal minds of his generation—died at the age of 65. Chase was a towering figure in antebellum legal and political life, best known for his ardent antislavery positions and constitutional rigor. A fierce abolitionist, he earned the nickname “Attorney General for Runaway Slaves” for his pro bono work defending fugitives in Ohio. Decades before the Civil War, Chase and Abraham Lincoln had crossed paths not as allies, but as legal adversaries. In an 1855 Illinois case—Effie Afton v. Rock Island Bridge Company—Chase represented steamboat interests, while Lincoln defended the nascent railroad industry; the trial featured two future titans on opposite sides of a commercial dispute that mirrored the country's growing sectional divisions.Despite their early courtroom rivalry and later competing candidacies for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination, Lincoln recognized Chase's legal acumen and political influence. He appointed him Secretary of the Treasury, where Chase proved instrumental in financing the Union war effort and creating a national banking system. Ever ambitious, Chase maneuvered politically from within Lincoln's cabinet, seeking the presidency even as he served. In 1864, Lincoln elevated Chase to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, where he presided over pivotal Reconstruction-era cases and the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson.As Chief Justice, Chase dissented in Bradwell v. Illinois and the Slaughter-House Cases, signaling a broader vision for the Fourteenth Amendment than the Court ultimately embraced. His dissents advocated for civil rights and economic fairness at a time when the Court was beginning to retreat from radical Reconstruction. Chase died on May 7, 1873, after collapsing in New York, ending a career that spanned law, finance, politics, and constitutional interpretation.A federal judge struck down an executive order by President Donald Trump targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, ruling it violated the First Amendment and due process protections. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found the order to be retaliatory, noting it was motivated by the firm's past legal work and its association with political opponents, including Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. The ruling relied heavily on Trump's own public comments—more than 20 of which were cited in the lawsuit—including social media posts and statements made during official events. These remarks, spanning from 2017 through his current term, were used to show the administration's intent to punish the firm for its perceived political stance.Trump's directive revoked security clearances for the firm's lawyers, blocked federal contracts, and limited their access to government officials. Howell emphasized that the problem wasn't Trump's personal criticisms but the official actions taken against the firm based on those views. The case illustrates how Trump's characteristic unfiltered commentary undermined legal defenses by revealing the political motivations behind executive actions. Howell also cited similar coercive behavior toward other major law firms, some of which made significant concessions to avoid being targeted. Legal experts noted that this ruling could influence outcomes in related cases involving other firms.How Trump's own words helped him lose a fight with law firm Perkins Coie | ReutersSamsung Electronics announced that its subsidiary, Harman International, will acquire the audio business of U.S.-based Masimo for $350 million. The move is aimed at bolstering Samsung's position in the global consumer audio market, which is projected to grow from $60.8 billion in 2025 to $70 billion by 2029. The company emphasized that integrating Masimo's audio operations with Harman will enhance its sound technology offerings and create synergies across its mobile, TV, and home appliance divisions. The deal aligns with Samsung's broader strategy to pursue significant mergers and acquisitions to address investor concerns and drive growth. Samsung reaffirmed its commitment to delivering concrete M&A outcomes during its annual shareholder meeting in March.Samsung Electronics says unit Harman acquires Masimo's audio business for $350 mln | ReutersA growing number of wealthy defendants are pursuing pardons from President Donald Trump, some spending over $1 million on legal teams, lobbyists, and consultants to improve their chances. The pardon process under Trump's second term has become informal and politically charged, with access and loyalty appearing to play major roles in who receives clemency. Business figures such as Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola Corp., have successfully received pardons after building political connections, contributing to Trump's campaign, and framing their prosecutions as examples of a weaponized justice system.Traditional channels for clemency through the Justice Department have largely been bypassed, replaced by direct appeals to the White House and advocacy from influential allies. Lawyers well-connected to Trump's circle are reportedly charging premium fees to prepare pardon bids. High-profile figures including crypto executives Sam Bankman-Fried and Roger Ver, as well as media entrepreneur Carlos Watson, have sought or secured relief through this unofficial route. Trump's administration claims it is correcting injustices, but critics argue the system now favors those with money and political ties.Lawyers Are Quoting $1 Million in Fees to Get Pardons to TrumpA federal judge in Rhode Island has blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with layoffs at three small federal agencies, issuing a preliminary injunction against a March 14 executive order that aimed to eliminate or drastically reduce the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), and the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA). Chief Judge John McConnell ruled that the order was likely unlawful, calling it “arbitrary and capricious” and in conflict with the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing Congress's authority to make laws and allocate funding.The coalition of states challenging the order argued the closures would cause immediate harm, and McConnell agreed, noting that MBDA had essentially been reduced to zero staff, making it impossible to administer its programs. The ruling rejected the administration's claim that the harms were merely speculative and emphasized that irreparable harm had already occurred. The judge also denied a request by the Trump administration to delay enforcement of the injunction. The legal fight is ongoing, but the decision represents a significant obstacle to Trump's broader efforts to restructure the federal government by executive order.Trump Must Halt Layoffs at Three Small Agencies, Judge Says (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us a textEnjoy this episode? Please share it with at least ONE friend who you think needs to hear it!Sovereign law expert, author, and legal researcher Brandon Joe Williams reveals shocking truths about U.S. citizenship, hidden legal definitions, and the contractual traps shaping your identity in episode 193 of the Far Out with Faust podcast.A seasoned legal expert and advocate for personal sovereignty, Brandon specializes in unraveling the complexities of the legal system. He is the author of Don't Get Fooled Again and founder of the Amnesty Coalition, where he educates individuals on reclaiming their rights within the U.S. legal framework. His work delves into how birth certificates, social security numbers, and hidden clauses in the legal system redefine the concept of personal freedom.In this episode, Brandon and Faust take a deep dive into the true meaning of U.S. citizenship, uncovering the legal sleight of hand that classifies individuals as entities within the corporate framework of the government. They explore the 14th Amendment, the implications of the Slaughterhouse Cases, and the financial structures that turn individuals into unwitting participants in a system designed for control. Brandon also sheds light on the concept of doing business as a foreign entity, the influence of artificial intelligence in legal contracts, and the overlooked legal mechanisms that dictate modern life.Topics include:• The hidden legal meaning of U.S. citizenship• How the 14th Amendment redefined personal identity• The Slaughterhouse Cases and their impact on sovereignty• Are U.S. states under federal jurisdiction, or are they sovereign entities?• The legal status of U.S. territories and their relationship with the federal government• How birth certificates and social security numbers create corporate entities• The role of the Commerce Clause in personal finance and taxation• The legal loopholes surrounding taxation and business identity• AI contracts and their potential to exploit personal likeness• How legal definitions shape government authority and personal rights• Understanding domicile vs. residence in the eyes of the law… and much more! Gain a new perspective on the legal framework that controls modern life and discover how to navigate it with informed awareness.

The Fourteenth Amendment - Its Impact on Civil Rights and Liberties. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, has profoundly influenced civil rights and liberties in America. Its broad and powerful language has provided the legal foundation for numerous landmark cases and legal protections, fundamentally transforming American society. The amendment contains several key clauses, each playing a critical role in shaping the legal landscape: Key Clauses. Citizenship Clause: Text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Impact: This clause grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., overturning the Dred Scott decision and ensuring that all citizens are entitled to the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. It has been central to debates about immigration and birthright citizenship. Privileges or Immunities Clause: Text: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Impact: Intended to protect citizens' rights against state infringement, though its scope was limited by the Slaughter-House Cases. It remains a potential basis for future legal arguments regarding federal and state relationships. Due Process Clause: Text: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Impact: Protects both procedural and substantive rights, ensuring fair procedures and safeguarding fundamental rights from government interference. It has been used to protect privacy, personal autonomy, and incorporate most of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Equal Protection Clause: Text: "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Impact: Requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people, serving as a cornerstone for many landmark civil rights decisions aimed at eliminating discrimination and ensuring equality. Key Applications and Impact. Challenging Segregation in Schools: Brown v Board of Education (1954): Declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause, leading to desegregation and advancing the Civil Rights Movement. Right to Privacy and Reproductive Rights: Roe v Wade (1973): Held that the Due Process Clause protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, establishing a framework for abortion rights and significantly impacting women's reproductive freedoms. Extending Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples: Obergefell v Hodges (2015): Ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, stating that denying this right violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, thus legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Broader Implications and Influence. Beyond these landmark cases, the Fourteenth Amendment has played a crucial role in numerous other areas of civil rights and liberties: Racial Equality: Used to challenge discriminatory practices in housing, employment, and voting rights. Loving v Virginia (1967), which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, exemplifies its impact. Gender Equality: The Equal Protection Clause has been instrumental in advancing gender equality. Reed v Reed (1971) highlighted its role in combating gender discrimination. Disability Rights: The amendment has been pivotal in protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities, as seen in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Immigration and Citizenship: The Citizenship Clause affirms the rights of individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status, shaping policies around birthright citizenship. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The Fourteenth Amendment - Its Impact on Civil Rights and Liberties. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, has profoundly influenced civil rights and liberties in America. Its broad and powerful language has provided the legal foundation for numerous landmark cases and legal protections, fundamentally transforming American society. The amendment contains several key clauses, each playing a critical role in shaping the legal landscape: Key Clauses. Citizenship Clause: Text: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Impact: This clause grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., overturning the Dred Scott decision and ensuring that all citizens are entitled to the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. It has been central to debates about immigration and birthright citizenship. Privileges or Immunities Clause: Text: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Impact: Intended to protect citizens' rights against state infringement, though its scope was limited by the Slaughter-House Cases. It remains a potential basis for future legal arguments regarding federal and state relationships. Due Process Clause: Text: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Impact: Protects both procedural and substantive rights, ensuring fair procedures and safeguarding fundamental rights from government interference. It has been used to protect privacy, personal autonomy, and incorporate most of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states. Equal Protection Clause: Text: "Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Impact: Requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people, serving as a cornerstone for many landmark civil rights decisions aimed at eliminating discrimination and ensuring equality. Key Applications and Impact. Challenging Segregation in Schools: Brown v Board of Education (1954): Declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause, leading to desegregation and advancing the Civil Rights Movement. Right to Privacy and Reproductive Rights: Roe v Wade (1973): Held that the Due Process Clause protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, establishing a framework for abortion rights and significantly impacting women's reproductive freedoms. Extending Marriage Rights to Same-Sex Couples: Obergefell v Hodges (2015): Ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, stating that denying this right violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, thus legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Broader Implications and Influence. Beyond these landmark cases, the Fourteenth Amendment has played a crucial role in numerous other areas of civil rights and liberties: Racial Equality: Used to challenge discriminatory practices in housing, employment, and voting rights. Loving v Virginia (1967), which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, exemplifies its impact. Gender Equality: The Equal Protection Clause has been instrumental in advancing gender equality. Reed v Reed (1971) highlighted its role in combating gender discrimination. Disability Rights: The amendment has been pivotal in protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities, as seen in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Immigration and Citizenship: The Citizenship Clause affirms the rights of individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status, shaping policies around birthright citizenship. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State determined that President Trump “engaged in an insurrection” after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and that he is therefore disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, professors Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston and Gerard Magliocca of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law dive into the meaning and purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the arguments for and against Trump's eligibility to run for a second term this fall. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, “The Supreme Court's Election Dilemma,” WSJ (Jan. 5, 2024)  Gerard Magliocca, “Background as Foreground: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and January Sixth,” (Dec. 21, 2022)  Gerard Magliocca, “Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” (July 20, 2021)  Gerard Magliocca, “What the Supreme Court Should Not Do in Trump's Disqualification Case,” NY Times (Jan. 5, 2024)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section Three,” (Sept. 19, 2023)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Is the President an ‘Officer of the United States' for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?” (Dec. 20, 2021)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, Amicus Brief in Support of Trump in Trump v. Anderson  Griffin's Case (1869)   The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)   Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)   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 U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing two cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina that could end affirmative action in higher education. Last week, the National Constitution Center hosted a program live, on May 4, 2023, featuring a conversation between constitutional law experts William B. Allen of Michigan State University and Hasan Kwame Jeffries of The Ohio State University. They discuss the history of affirmative action, the current cases before the Court, how the Court might rule in them, and how the outcome of the two cases could affect the future of affirmative action programs across the country. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) William B. Allen, “End of Affirmative Action 2023”   Interview with Hasan Kwame Jeffries, “Why Conservatives want the Supreme Court to take up Affirmative Action Case,” Yahoo!News   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 1,” We the People podcast   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 2,” We the People podcast   Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)   Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)   Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)   Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) Slaughter-House Cases (1873) Shelby County v. Holder (2013) 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. 

CLICK HERE to listen to episode audio (5:32).Sections below are the following: Transcript of Audio Audio Notes and Acknowledgments ImageExtra InformationSources Related Water Radio Episodes For Virginia Teachers (Relevant SOLs, etc.). Unless otherwise noted, all Web addresses mentioned were functional as of 4-14-23. TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO From the Cumberland Gap to the Atlantic Ocean, this is Virginia Water Radio for the weeks of April 17 and April 24, 2023.  This episode, the sixth in a series on water in U.S. civil rights history, continues our exploration of water connections to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. MUSIC – ~23 sec – instrumental. That's part of “Mississippi Farewell,” by Dieter van der Westen.  It opens an episode on how Mississippi River water and public health were the context for the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the meaning and extent of the 14th Amendment.  One of three constitutional amendments passed and ratified soon after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment aimed to guarantee citizenship rights and legal protections, especially for newly freed Black people.  In 1873, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in three consolidated cases about wastes from livestock processing facilities in Louisiana; this ruling had decades-long implications for key parts of the 14th Amendment and for civil rights.  Have a listen to the music for about 25 more seconds, and see if you know the name of these consolidated Supreme Court cases. MUSIC – ~27 sec – instrumental. If you guessed The Slaughterhouse Cases, you're right!  As of the 1860s, some 300,000 livestock animals were slaughtered annually at facilities along the Mississippi River in and around New Orleans, upstream of water supply intakes, with much of the untreated waste from the process reaching the river.  Concerns over the potential for diseases from this water contamination led the Louisiana legislature to pass the Slaughterhouse Act of 1869.  This law authorized a single corporation to operate one slaughterhouse facility on the Mississippi downstream of New Orleans and required all butchers in the area to use that facility.  Butchers' organizations filed suit, alleging that the law infringed on their work rights in violation of the 14th Amendment's clauses prohibiting states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and from denying people equal protection of the laws. On April 14, 1873, the Supreme Court issued its ruling, with the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Miller.  Miller's opinion upheld the Louisiana law, finding that that the slaughterhouse monopoly granted by the state was within the police powers to provide for public health and sanitation.  Justice Miller went further, however, in asserting that the 14th Amendment gave the federal government jurisdiction only over federal, or national, citizenship rights—that is, privileges and immunities—but not over rights historically considered to result from state citizenship.  Miller also asserted that the amendment's equal protection clause applied only to the case of Black people emancipated from slavery.  The Slaughterhouse Cases decision, along with other related Supreme Court decisions during the Reconstruction Era, created long-lasting legal barriers to federal government efforts against state-level violations of civil rights, such as racial and gender discrimination, voting restrictions, and failure to prevent or prosecute racially-motivated crimes of violence. Thanks to Dieter van der Westen and Free Music Archive for making this week's music available for public use, and we close with about 20 more seconds of “Mississippi Farewell.” MUSIC – ~22 sec – instrumental. SHIP'S BELL Virginia Water Radio is produced by the Virginia Water Resources Research Center, part of Virginia Tech's College of Natural Resources and Environment.  For more Virginia water sounds, music, or information, visit us online at virginiawaterradio.org, or call the Water Center at (540) 231-5624.  Thanks to Ben Cosgrove for his version of “Shenandoah” to open and close this episode.  In Blacksburg, I'm Alan Raflo, thanking you for listening, and wishing you health, wisdom, and good water. AUDIO NOTES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “Mississippi Farewell,” from the 2022 album “Belin to Bamako,” was made available on Free Music Archive, online at at https://freemusicarchive.org/music/dieter-van-der-westen/berlin-to-bamako/mississippi-farewell/.  as of 4-12-23, for use under the Creative Commons License “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International”; more information on that Creative Commons License is available online at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Click here if you'd like to hear the full version (2 min./22 sec.) of the “Shenandoah” arrangement/performance by Ben Cosgrove that opens and closes this episode.  More information about Mr. Cosgrove is available online at http://www.bencosgrove.com. IMAGE Birds' eye view of New Orleans in 1851.  Drawing by J. Bachman.  Image accessed from the Library of Congress' Prints and Photographs Online Catalog, online at https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/93500720, as of 4-18-23.  EXTRA INFORMATION ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT The following information about, and text of, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was taken from National Archives, “Milestone Documents: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868),” online at https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment. “Following the Civil War, Congress submitted to the states three amendments as part of its Reconstruction program to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens.  A major provision of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States,' thereby granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people. “Another equally important provision was the statement that ‘nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'  The right to due process of law and equal protection of the law now applied to both the federal and state governments. “On June 16, 1866, the House Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was submitted to the states.  On July 28, 1868, the 14th amendment was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State, ratified by the necessary 28 of the 37 States, and became part of the supreme law of the land.” Text of 14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. SOURCES Used for Audio Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, “Teaching American History/United States v. Cruikshank” undated, online at https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/united-states-v-cruikshank/. Jack Beatty, Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900, Vintage Books, New York, N.Y., 2007. Ronald M. Labbe and Jonathan Lurie, The Slaughterhouse Cases: Regulation, Reconstruction, and the Fourteenth Amendment, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 2003. Danny Lewis, “The 1873 Colfax Massacre Crippled the Reconstruction Era,” Smithsonian Magazine, April 13, 2016. Linda R. Monk, The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution, Hachette Books, New York, N.Y., 2015. Oyez (Cornell University Law School/Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law), “Slaughter-House Cases,” online at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/83us36. Melvin I. Urofsky and Paul Finkelman, A March of Liberty – A Constitutional History of the United States, Volume I: From the Founding to 1900, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 2011. John R. Vile, “Slaughterhouse Cases (1873),” Middle Tennessee State University/The First Amendment Encyclopedia, online at https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/527/slaughterhouse-cases. Other Sources on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Cornell University Law School/Legal Information Institute: “U.S. Constitution/14th Amendment,” online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv; and “Fourteenth Amendment,” online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0. Thurgood Marshall Institute, “The 14th Amendment,” online at https://tminstituteldf.org/tmi-explains/thurgood-marshall-institute-briefs/tmi-briefs-the-14th-amendment/. NAACP, “Celebrate and Defend the Fourteenth Amendment Resolution,” 2013, online at https://naacp.org/resources/celebrate-and-defend-fourteenth-amendment. U.S. House of Representatives, “Constitutional Amendments and Major Civil Rights Acts of Congress Referenced in Black Americans in Congress,” online at https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Data/Constitutional-Amendments-and-Legislation/. U.S. National Archives, “Milestone Documents: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868),” online at https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment. U.S. Senate, “Landmark Legislation: The Fourteenth Amendment,” online at https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/14th-amendment.htm. For More Information about Civil Rights in the United States British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), “The Civil Rights Movement in America,” online at https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zcpcwmn/revision/1. Howard University Law Library, “A Brief History of Civil Rights in the United States,” online at https://library.law.howard.edu/civilrightshistory/intro. University of Maryland School of Law/Thurgood Marshall Law Library, “Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights,” online at https://law.umaryland.libguides.com/commission_civil_rights. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, online at https://www.usccr.gov/. RELATED VIRGINIA WATER RADIO EPISODES All Water Radio episodes are listed by category at the Index link above (http://www.virginiawaterradio.org/p/index.html).  See particularly the “History” subject category. This episode is part of the series, Exploring Water in U.S. Civil Rights History.  As of April 17, 2023, other episodes in the series are as follows.Series overview – Episode 566, 3-1-21. Water Symbolism in African American Civil Rights History – Episode 591, 8-23-21. Uses of Water By and Against African Americans in U.S. Civil Rights History – Episode 616, 2-14-22. Water Places in U.S. Civil Rights History - Episode 619, 3-7-22.The 14th Amendment and Water-related Civil Rights Claims – Part 1: Introduction to the 14th Amendment – Episode 652, 4-3-23. FOR VIRGINIA TEACHERS – RELATED STANDARDS OF LEARNING (SOLs) AND OTHER INFORMATION Following are some Virginia Standards of Learning (SOLs) that may be supported by this episode's audio/transcript, sources, or other information included in this post. 2020 Music SOLs SOLs at various grade levels that call for “examining the relationship of music to the other fine arts and other fields of knowledge.” 2015 Social Studies SOLs Grades K-3 Civics Theme3.12 – Importance of government in community, Virginia, and the United States, including government protecting rights and property of individuals. Virginia Studies CourseVS.9 – How national events affected Virginia and its citizens. United States History to 1865 CourseUSI.9 – Causes, events, and effects of the Civil War. United States History: 1865-to-Present CourseUSII.3 – Effects of Reconstruction on American life.USII.8 – Economic, social, and political transformation of the United States and the world after World War II. Civics and Economics CourseCE.2 – Foundations, purposes, and components of the U.S. Constitution.CE.3 – Citizenship rights, duties, and responsibilities.CE.6 – Government at the national level.CE.7 – Government at the state level.CE.10 – Public policy at local, state, and national levels. Virginia and United States History CourseVUS.7 – Knowledge of the Civil War and Reconstruction eras. Government CourseGOVT.3 – Concepts of democracy.GOVT.4 – Purposes, principles, and structure of the U.S. Constitution.GOVT.5 – Federal system of government in the United States.GOVT.7 – National government organization and powers.GO

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 14th Amendment gets the same treatment as the slaughter runoff.

Howdy everyone, and thanks again for tuning in to The Jeffersonian Tradition. In today's episode, I wrap up the study of the federal bill of rights and their relation to the states after ratification of the 14th amendment. If you want me to cover a topic or elaborate further on any given episode, then reach out to me through the show's private MeWe group, or by contacting me at the show email address, which is mrjeffersonian@outlook.com. If you find value in the podcast, please consider becoming a supporting listener. One-time contributions can be sent to the show's cash app, http://cash.app/$MrJeffersonian . Recurring contributions can be made through the Anchor supporting listener link. Thanks again for tuning in to The Jeffersonian Tradition! Sign up for MeWe today: https://mewe.com. Fuel the Jeffersonian Revolution today and buy your goldbacks here: Defy the Grid. Help us out with Little Miss Jeffersonian HERE --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mr-jeffersonian/support

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

In this bonus episode, four guests joined us to make the case for why the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, Kelo v. City of New London, Wickard v. Filburn, or the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hear the arguments and then YOU decide. Cast your vote in the Twitter poll posted by @CaseyMattox_.Thanks to our guests Daniel Dew, Ilya Somin, Josh Blackman, and Clark Neily. Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this bonus episode, four guests joined us to make the case for why the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, Kelo v. City of New London, Wickard v. Filburn, or the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hear the arguments and then YOU decide. Cast your vote in the Twitter poll posted by @CaseyMattox_.   Thanks to our guests Daniel Dew, Ilya […]

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.

Where new rights go to die. 

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.

More things get gutted than the unlucky cows.

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 […]

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 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. 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/

In 1962, Professor Fred Rodell of Yale Law School, the "bad boy of American legal academia," asked his students to write scripts describing important Supreme Court cases for the "Second Series" of his "Supreme Court Cases" recordings. The scripts were directed by S.P. Puner, performed by John Randolph, Jack Curtis, and Martin Wolfson, and released on LP by Educational Audio Visual, Inc. in January 1963.According to the record sleeve:The arguments of the lawyers in each of these cases are paraphrased from the language used in the original briefs of the contending parties. However, in all cases when the Court speaks, we have quoted the exact language of the judge delivering the opinion, taken from the official report of the case. The opinion, of course, has been condensed and necessary connective words or phrases have been added. The script for each cases was prepared by Yale Law School students in Professor Fred Rodell's Course in Law and Public Opinion.The script for Slaughter House Cases (1873) was written by Harry Seay. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week, Sheldon Gilbert of the Institute for Justice joins the ladies to talk about why it's time for SCOTUS to overrule the infamous Slaughterhouse Cases. They also try to stump Sheldon in a round of Supreme Trivia. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

After giving a broad overview of the philosophical underpinnings of governments last week, Roger Pilon joins us again to discuss the U.S. Constitution in particular and how the Constitution has been interpreted over the years.Pilon recounts the original signing of the Constitution and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, how post-Civil War constitutional amendments fundamentally altered the structure of American federalism, the Slaughter-House Cases of the late-19th century, Lochner v. New York, the New Deal Era, and how judicial interpretations of the General Welfare and Commerce clauses changed over time.Why was there no Bill of Rights when the Constitution was drafted? Is an originalist view of the constitution a necessarily antiquated one? Shouldn’t government be given enough power to realistically address any new concerns affect the nation as a whole, possibly issues that the Founders couldn’t have thought of? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Paul Clement and Michael Ross talk about the 1873 Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases, in which the court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment protected rights guaranteed by U.S. citizenship but not those guaranteed by individual state citizenship. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On the Liberty Law Talk podcast, host Richard Reinsch talks with Clint Bolick, Vice President of Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, about his book Death Grip: Loosening the Law’s Stranglehold over Economic Liberty. Bolick, of course, is no stranger to litigating constitutional claims for economic liberties and property rights, among other achievements. Death Grip argues that the infamous Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 emptied the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of one its primary purposes: the protection of economic liberties against encroachment by state governments. This conversation explores the history and intent behind the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and its privileges or immunities clause, and then looks to current efforts to breathe life back into the protection of economic liberties.   >> Listen here On the Liberty Law Talk podcast, host Richard Reinsch talks with Clint Bolick, Vice President of Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, about his book Death Grip: Loosening the Law’s Stranglehold over Economic Liberty. Bolick, of course, is no stranger to litigating constitutional claims for economic liberties and property rights, among other achievements. Liberty Law TalkMonday, May 7, 2012 - 14:07Liberty Law TalkConstitutional RightsBusiness & Job CreationAudioIn the NewsYesEconomic liberty, jobs, business, booksBy Topicsfalse