Legal Definitions - Slaughterhouse Cases

The Slaughterhouse Cases refer to a landmark 1873 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. This case was the Court's first attempt to interpret the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified after the Civil War to protect the rights of newly freed slaves and all citizens. The Court ruled that this clause primarily protected rights that individuals held specifically by virtue of their U.S. citizenship (such as the right to travel to the nation's capital or access federal ports), but not the broader civil rights that people held as citizens of a particular state (like the right to own property, pursue a profession, or vote).

By drawing a sharp distinction between federal and state citizenship rights and defining federal privileges very narrowly, the decision significantly limited the power of the federal government to protect individual liberties against state actions. Critics argue that this interpretation effectively weakened the clause's intended impact for many decades, leaving many fundamental rights vulnerable to state control rather than federal protection.

• Example 1: Professional Licensing and State Monopolies

  Imagine a state legislature in the late 19th century passes a law granting a single private company the exclusive right to operate all taxi services within the state. Other aspiring taxi drivers, who are citizens of that state and the U.S., are now prevented from opening their own businesses. If they were to challenge this state law under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, arguing that their right to pursue a livelihood was being violated, the precedent set by the Slaughterhouse Cases would likely lead to their defeat. The Court's interpretation would categorize the right to pursue a specific profession as a privilege of state citizenship, not U.S. citizenship, thereby allowing the state to maintain its monopoly without federal intervention under that particular clause.

• Example 2: State-Sanctioned Discrimination in Public Accommodations

  Consider a scenario shortly after the Civil War where a state enacts laws that permit or even mandate racial segregation in public places like restaurants, hotels, and theaters. Individuals affected by these discriminatory laws might seek federal protection, arguing that their fundamental civil rights as U.S. citizens were being violated. However, due to the narrow interpretation established in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the federal courts would likely decline to intervene based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The Court had determined that such civil rights, including the right to equal access to public accommodations, were primarily matters of state citizenship, leaving states largely free to define and limit these rights without federal oversight through this specific constitutional provision.

• Example 3: Restrictions on Property Ownership

  Suppose a state passed a law that severely restricted the ability of certain groups of people, perhaps recent immigrants or specific ethnic minorities, from owning land or inheriting property within its borders. Citizens affected by this law might argue that their right to acquire and hold property, a fundamental aspect of economic freedom, was being infringed. Under the precedent of the Slaughterhouse Cases, challenging such a law using the Privileges and Immunities Clause would be difficult. The Court's ruling implied that the right to own property, while fundamental, was primarily a privilege derived from state citizenship, not federal citizenship. This meant that states had broad authority to regulate property rights, and the federal government's ability to intervene on behalf of citizens using this clause was severely curtailed, leaving many civil and economic rights vulnerable to state control.