Also known as: P & I Clause · Privileges and Immunities Clause · Privileges & Immunities Clause · Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional provision in Article IV, Section 2 that entitles citizens of each state to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. The clause bars a state from discriminating against nonresidents with respect to fundamental rights such as the pursuit of a common calling unless the state shows a substantial reason for the distinction and a close fit between that reason and the discriminatory means.
Lila, a lawyer licensed in State X, applies for admission to the State Y bar after moving there for family reasons. State Y denies her application solely because she has not resided in State Y for three years. The court invalidates the residency rule because it discriminates against nonresidents in the pursuit of law practice without a substantial justification tied to actual risks of unavailability or misconduct.
Derek, an attorney practicing in State P, seeks reciprocal admission in State Q under a rule limited to attorneys who maintain their principal office in State Q. State Q rejects the application on residency grounds alone. The court strikes down the rule because it imposes a discriminatory barrier on nonresidents seeking to practice law without adequate justification.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Elena, a new arrival in State R, applies for state welfare benefits after accepting a job there. State R denies the benefits because she has lived in the state for only eight months. The court holds that the one-year waiting period violates the clause by penalizing the exercise of the right to travel and pursue livelihood on equal terms with longer-term residents.
Victor, a labor organizer from State S, travels to State T to help form a union chapter. State T officials block his meetings and leafleting on the ground that he is not a resident. The court finds the exclusion violates the clause because it denies nonresidents access to fundamental rights of speech and assembly available to local citizens.
Nora, a citizen of State U, sues State V officials under federal law after they refuse her access to state courts for a contract dispute solely because she is a nonresident. The court recognizes that the clause supplies a protected privilege of equal access to courts that supports the federal remedy.
Oscar, a citizen of State W, is denied a municipal business permit in State X because he is not a resident. He sues the city under federal civil rights law. The court treats the city as a proper defendant because the clause protects the underlying right to pursue a livelihood without citizenship-based barriers.
No. The clause protects only natural persons who are citizens of a state. Corporations are not citizens for purposes of the clause and therefore cannot invoke it to challenge residency-based economic restrictions.
Supporting sources
A state must show a substantial reason for the discrimination and demonstrate that the discriminatory means are closely related to that reason. Speculative concerns about nonresidents' availability or compliance are insufficient.
Supporting sources
No. The clause does not compel states to subsidize nonresidents with funds raised from residents. Residency requirements for certain public benefits may survive if they reflect legitimate fiscal distinctions rather than a total bar on economic opportunity.
Supporting sources
States may not impose residency requirements that exclude nonresidents from practicing law without substantial justification. Rules that close an entire path to admission or impose higher burdens solely on nonresidents are invalid when they lack a close fit to legitimate regulatory goals.
Supporting sources
…Amendment, as a whole , makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. This would certainly include the language of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, as well as the Due Process Clause. [^maj-37]: For a more thorough exposition of my views against this approach to the Due Process Clause, see my concurring opinion in Rochin v.…