Also known as: Privileges and Immunities Clause · Privileges or Immunities Clause · Article IV Privileges and Immunities · Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Constitutional provisions that shield citizens from state discrimination regarding fundamental rights of citizenship. The Article IV clause requires each state to extend to citizens of other states the same privileges and immunities it affords its own citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment clause safeguards a narrow set of rights inherent in national citizenship against state abridgment.
Perry Pratt moved from State A to State B to take a job and immediately applied for state welfare benefits. State B awarded him only the lower amount he would have received in State A and imposed a one-year waiting period for full benefits. The restriction treated him differently from longer-term residents solely because of his recent arrival from another state.
Pamela Phillips, licensed in State A, sought admission to the State B bar without establishing residency. State B rejected her application on the ground that nonresidents would not keep current with local rules or perform pro bono work. The rule excluded her from practicing law in State B on the basis of her out-of-state citizenship.
Priscilla Parks, a resident of State A, applied for reciprocal admission in State B under a program that required applicants to maintain their principal office in State B. State B denied the application because she kept her office in State A. The residency condition blocked her from practicing law across state lines on equal terms with State B residents.
Patrick Phan, a citizen of State A who had just moved to State B, was arrested by State B officers acting under color of state law. He sued the officers in federal court under federal civil rights law alleging that the arrest violated rights protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clauses. The suit proceeded because the clauses supply a basis for challenging state action that discriminates against new residents.
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 casePhoebe Park, a citizen of State A visiting State B on business, was served with process while temporarily present in State B. She challenged the court's jurisdiction on the ground that the service interfered with her privileges as a citizen of another state under the Privileges and Immunities Clauses. The court upheld jurisdiction because transient presence supplies a traditional basis for personal jurisdiction that does not violate the clauses.
Dennis Burnham married Francie Burnham in 1976 in West Virginia. In 1977 the couple moved to New Jersey, where their two children were born. In July 1987 the Burnhams separated. Mrs. Burnham, who intended to move to California, was visiting her parents in that State when she filed for divorce in New Jersey on grounds of extreme cruelty, seeking spousal and child support, custody of the children, and possession of the family home. In early August 1987 petitioner visited Mrs. Burnham in California to discuss the children and the separation. He took the children to San Francisco for a few days. Upon returning the children to Mrs. Burnham, petitioner was served with a summons and complaint for divorce filed in California Superior Court that also sought custody of the children. After being served, petitioner returned to New Jersey. In January 1988 petitioner made a special appearance in the California action and moved to quash service of process on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the State Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the state and federal courts.
View casePaul Peterson, a citizen of State A, was prosecuted in State B under a procedure that denied him a right he claimed was protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argued that the right was an attribute of national citizenship that State B could not abridge. The court rejected the claim because the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only a limited set of national rights and does not incorporate most Bill of Rights guarantees.
Frank Palko was indicted in Fairfield County, Connecticut, for the crime of murder in the first degree. A jury found him guilty of murder in the second degree, and he was sentenced to confinement in the state prison for life. Thereafter the State of Connecticut, with the permission of the judge presiding at the trial, gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Errors pursuant to an act adopted in 1886, now section 6494 of the General Statutes. Upon such appeal, the Supreme Court of Errors reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. It found that there had been error of law to the prejudice of the state in excluding testimony as to a confession by defendant, in excluding testimony upon cross-examination of defendant to impeach his credibility, and in the instructions to the jury as to the difference between first and second degree murder. Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of Errors, Palko was brought to trial again. Before a jury was impaneled and also at later stages of the case he made the objection that the effect of the new trial was to place him twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and in so doing to violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Upon the overruling of the objection the trial proceeded. The jury returned a verdict of murder in the first degree, and the court sentenced the defendant to the punishment of death. The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the judgment of conviction, adhering to a decision announced in 1894, State v. Lee, which upheld the challenged statute. Palko sought review in the Supreme Court of the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 344.
View caseNo. A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the clause, so states may regulate or exclude foreign corporations without violating Article IV. The clause applies only to natural persons who are citizens of other states.
Supporting sources
It protects fundamental rights such as the right to pursue a livelihood, engage in a common calling, travel, contract, and own property on equal terms with residents of the forum state. Residency requirements that discriminate against nonresidents in these areas are invalid absent substantial justification.
Supporting sources
Yes when the benefit is tied to the pursuit of a livelihood or fundamental right. A state may not limit welfare or employment-related grants to prior residents or impose durational waiting periods that penalize recent arrivals from other states.
Supporting sources
…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. See…