Also known as: Privileges & Immunities Clause · Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause · P&I Clause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional provision in Article IV, Section 2 that prohibits a state from discriminating against citizens of other states with respect to fundamental rights of citizenship. It safeguards the ability of citizens to pursue a common calling or livelihood on substantially equal terms with residents when they enter another state. A state may not impose residency-based barriers to such activities unless it demonstrates a substantial reason for the distinction and a close fit between that reason and the discriminatory means.
Phoebe Park, licensed in State A, seeks admission to the State B bar without examination under a reciprocity rule open only to State B residents. State B denies her application solely because she lives in State A. The denial prevents her from practicing law on equal terms with residents despite her qualifications and offer to maintain local ties.
Parker Phillips, a State C resident and licensed attorney, applies for reciprocal admission in State D. State D requires nonresidents to pass its bar exam while waiving the requirement for its own residents. The extra exam requirement raises the cost and delay for Parker to practice in State D.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Phuong Pham, a State E citizen visiting State F on business, faces a contract dispute and seeks to file suit in State F court. State F rules bar nonresidents from using its courts without posting a bond that residents need not post. The bond requirement blocks Phuong from pursuing her claim on equal terms.
Penelope Price, a State G citizen employed by a State H agency, receives a federal directive requiring her office to perform background checks under a national program. State H officials refuse to comply, citing limits on federal power to direct state personnel. The refusal leaves Penelope unable to carry out duties tied to her livelihood.
Peter Park, a State I citizen charged with a serious offense while in State J, seeks a jury trial. State J denies the request on the ground that only its own citizens receive full procedural protections. The denial treats Peter differently from residents in a fundamental criminal proceeding.
Pavel Petrov, a State K citizen testifying in a State L proceeding, invokes the privilege against self-incrimination. State L refuses to recognize the privilege for nonresidents. The refusal exposes Pavel to compulsion that residents would not face in the same setting.
It protects fundamental rights of state citizenship, including the right to pursue a common calling or livelihood on substantially equal terms with residents of the forum state. The clause prevents states from imposing residency-based barriers to such activities without a substantial reason closely related to the discrimination.
No. Corporations are not citizens within the meaning of the clause, so they cannot invoke it to challenge state discrimination. Other provisions such as the Commerce Clause may constrain state treatment of foreign corporations instead.
A state may discriminate only when it shows a substantial reason for the distinction and demonstrates that the means are closely related to that reason. Speculative concerns about nonresidents' availability or compliance do not suffice.
States may not require residency for bar admission or impose discriminatory burdens on nonresident lawyers seeking to practice law, a protected common calling, absent substantial justification closely tied to the restriction.
…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 of Article IV prevents a state government from discriminating against a transient defendant by denying him the protections of its law or the right of access to its courts.[^maj-12] See…