How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges and immunities clause?

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was adopted in 1868, after the Civil War. It includes the Privileges and Immunities clause, which states that "[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted this clause to mean that the states are barred from arbitrarily depriving individuals of basic liberties, such as the rights to freedom of speech, travel, and to due process of law. In the 1873 decision of the Supreme Court case of the Slaughter-House Cases, the Court held that the privileges or immunities clause was mainly meant to protect the rights of citizens to travel freely among the states. In addition, a number of subsequent Supreme Court decisions have held that the clause also protects certain other rights, such as the right to vote, the right to earn a livelihood, the right to education, and the right to equal protection of the laws. In recent years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the clause more broadly, holding that it applies to economic liberty and other fundamental rights. For instance, in the 2010 Supreme Court case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court held that the clause protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Thus, in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause, the Supreme Court has established that this clause bars the states from arbitrarily depriving individuals of fundamental rights and liberties. Such decisions have helped to ensure that all citizens of the United States have the right to enjoy the basic liberties of life without fear of state infringement.

How has the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges and immunities clause?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts