Also known as: privilege and immunity · privileges or immunities · Privileges and Immunities Clause · Privileges or Immunities Clause · P&I Clause
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A constitutional guarantee that citizens of each state receive the same fundamental rights in every other state. The clause bars states from discriminating against nonresidents in the exercise of basic civil and economic rights such as pursuing a livelihood.
A constitutional protection that prevents states from abridging the privileges or immunities of United States citizenship. The clause safeguards rights that attach to national citizenship, including the right to travel and to receive equal treatment upon arrival in a new state.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A constitutional guarantee that citizens of each state receive the same fundamental rights in every other state. The clause bars states from discriminating against nonresidents in the exercise of basic civil and economic rights such as pursuing a livelihood.
Paul Peterson, a licensed attorney residing in State A, applies for admission to the State B bar. State B requires one year of prior residency before granting admission. The requirement blocks Peterson from practicing his profession on equal terms with State B residents. The court strikes down the residency rule as an unjustified barrier to a common calling.
Preston Pratt maintains his principal office in State A and seeks admission in State B under its reciprocity rule. State B demands that Pratt establish a permanent office and reside in State B before granting reciprocal admission. The extra conditions raise the cost of practicing across state lines. The court invalidates the residency and office requirements as discriminatory against nonresidents.
Paula Pierce, a citizen of State A, opens a temporary retail outlet in State B. State B offers a reduced licensing fee only to applicants who have paid local taxes for at least one year. Pierce pays the full fee because she lacks prior residency. The differential fee burdens her ability to engage in ordinary commercial activity on equal terms with State B citizens.
3 common questions
The clause protects fundamental rights that belong to citizens of all free governments, including the right to pursue a common calling, to contract, and to own and dispose of property. Courts apply it when a state discriminates against nonresidents in access to these rights.
Supporting sources
No. The clause protects natural persons who are citizens of a state. Corporations are not citizens within the meaning of either the Article IV or the Fourteenth Amendment clause.
A constitutional protection that prevents states from abridging the privileges or immunities of United States citizenship. The clause safeguards rights that attach to national citizenship, including the right to travel and to receive equal treatment upon arrival in a new state.
Pearl Porter moves from State A to State B for a new job. State B's statute limits her welfare payments to the amount she would have received in State A for her first year. The limitation treats her differently from longer-term residents solely because of her recent arrival. The court holds that the waiting period violates her right to equal treatment as a newly arrived citizen.
Perry Pratt, born and naturalized in the United States, relocates to State B. State B enacts a statute that withholds certain economic benefits from anyone who has not resided in the state for three years. The statute singles out Pratt because of his recent move. The court finds that the distinction abridges a privilege of national citizenship protected against state action.
Portia Price, a citizen of the United States, faces state prosecution in State B. State B seeks to compel her testimony under a state procedure that differs from federal protections. Price asserts that the privilege against self-incrimination is among the rights secured to national citizens. The court applies the federal standard to the state proceeding because the right is protected against state abridgment.
2 common questions
The Fourteenth Amendment clause protects rights that attach to national citizenship against state action. The Article IV clause prevents one state from discriminating against citizens of other states in the exercise of fundamental rights.
Supporting sources
…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…
…rather than on the Due Process Clause alone. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks not only of due process but also of "privileges and immunities
…is free to travel on the State's roads and water-ways; he likely enjoys the fruits of the State's economy as well. Moreover, the Privileges and Immunities Clause
…not simply one for voluntary effort. It does not seek merely to endow voluntary trade or industrial associations or groups with privileges or immunities. It involves the coercive exercise of the law-making power. The codes of fair competition which the statute attempts to authorize are codes of laws. If valid, they place all persons within…
…See Spies v. Illinois , 123 U. S. 131. Decisions that particular guarantees were not safeguarded against state action by the Privileges and Immunities Clause or other provision of the Fourteenth Amendment are: United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U. S. 542, 551; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek , 259 U. S. 530, 543 (First Amendment); Presser v.…
Supporting sources
The state must show a substantial reason for the discrimination and that the requirement bears a close relationship to that reason. Speculative concerns about out-of-state lawyers' competence or availability do not suffice.
Supporting sources
In November 1959, Harold Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid in Hartford, Connecticut, on charges related to pool selling. He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor, receiving a sentence of one year in jail and a five-hundred-dollar fine, with the jail term suspended after ninety days followed by two years of probation. Approximately sixteen months later, Malloy was subpoenaed to appear before a referee appointed by the Superior Court of Hartford County to investigate alleged gambling and other criminal activities in the county. During the inquiry, he was questioned about the circumstances of his 1959 arrest and conviction, including the identity of his employer, who paid his fine and bondsman, the tenant of the apartment where he was arrested, and whether he knew a man named John Bergoti. Malloy refused to answer any of these questions, asserting that his responses might tend to incriminate him. The Superior Court adjudged Malloy in contempt and ordered him committed to prison until he answered the questions. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the contempt adjudication, holding that the Fifth Amendment privilege was unavailable in state proceedings and that Malloy had not properly invoked the state constitutional privilege. Malloy then sought federal habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, which was denied, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutional questions presented.
View caseNo. A state may not impose a one-year waiting period or limit benefits to the amount a new resident would have received in the former state. Such rules violate the right of newly arrived citizens to equal treatment.
Supporting sources