Also known as: Privileges and Immunities · privileges and immunities clause · P&I Clause · Privileges or Immunities Clause
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A constitutional guarantee entitling citizens of each state to the privileges and immunities afforded citizens in the several states.
Pilar Pena faces felony charges in State A after an industrial incident. She relocates to State B for work. State A demands her return. The State B governor must deliver her under the clause without conducting an independent review of the evidence.
Perry Pratt moves from State A to State B for employment. State B caps his welfare payments at the lower State A level for one year. The waiting period violates his right to equal treatment as a newly arrived citizen under the clause.
Peter Park, licensed in State A, applies for admission in State B. State B requires one year of prior residency. The requirement discriminates against nonresidents in the common calling of law practice without substantial justification.
Parker Phillips holds a license in State A and seeks reciprocal admission in State B. State B imposes an additional residency test on out-of-state applicants. The test infringes the protected right to pursue the common calling of law absent a substantial state interest.
Pedro Pacheco inherits land in State A while residing in State B. State A denies him the right to hold or convey the property on equal terms with its own citizens. The clause requires State A to extend the same property privileges to him as to its own citizens.
In October 1966, nineteen-year-old Gary Duncan stopped his car on Highway 23 in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, after seeing his two younger Negro cousins talking with four white boys near a formerly all-white high school that had recently experienced racial incidents. Duncan approached the group, spoke with the white boys, encouraged his cousins to leave, and was about to drive away when a dispute arose over whether he had slapped or merely touched one of the white boys on the elbow. At his trial in the Twenty-fifth Judicial District Court of Louisiana, the white boys and a white onlooker testified that Duncan had slapped Herman Landry, while Duncan and his cousins testified that he had only touched the boy. The trial judge found Duncan guilty of simple battery beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Louisiana law, simple battery is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment and a three-hundred-dollar fine. Duncan requested a jury trial, but the trial judge denied the request because the Louisiana Constitution provides for jury trials only in cases where capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed. Duncan was convicted by the judge alone and sentenced to sixty days in the parish prison and a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. Duncan sought review in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which denied his application for a writ of certiorari. He then petitioned the United States Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), alleging that the denial of a jury trial violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument along with a related case.
View casePortia Price suffers unlawful searches by state officers in State A. She sues under federal law. The clause supports the availability of a federal remedy for violations of constitutional rights by state actors.
On October 29, 1958, at approximately 5:45 a.m., thirteen Chicago police officers entered the apartment of James Monroe and his family without a search warrant or arrest warrant. The officers roused the Monroes from bed using flashlights and forced them at gunpoint to stand naked in the living room while ransacking every room, emptying drawers, and ripping mattress covers. Detective Pape struck Mr. Monroe several times with his flashlight and called him "nigger" and "black boy." Other officers hit and kicked several of the children and pushed them to the floor. Mr. Monroe was then taken to the police station and detained on open charges for ten hours. During this period he was interrogated about a murder, exhibited in lineups, and not permitted to call his family or attorney, although he was not brought before a magistrate despite their availability. He was released without any criminal charges being filed against him. The complaint alleged that these actions occurred under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of Illinois and Chicago, and that the City had no rules or controls over its police officers, permitting them to act without restraint. The Monroes claimed deprivations of rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought compensatory and punitive damages from the officers and the City. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseNo. Corporations are not citizens within the meaning of the clause, so states retain broad power to regulate or exclude foreign corporations from intrastate business.
Supporting sources
Discriminatory residency rules that burden the pursuit of a common calling receive strict scrutiny and are invalid absent a substantial justification that cannot be served by less discriminatory means.
Supporting sources
Yes when the benefit is tied to the fundamental right to pursue a livelihood. A one-year waiting period or reduced benefits for new arrivals violates the clause by penalizing the exercise of the right to travel and relocate.
Supporting sources
The extradition clause imposes a mandatory duty on the asylum state to deliver a fugitive upon proper demand. The governor may conduct only minimal verification and cannot refuse or delay delivery based on an independent assessment of the underlying charge.
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…