Also known as: Privileges and Immunities Clause · Privileges & Immunities · Privileges and Immunities · P&I Clause · Article IV Privileges and Immunities
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional provision guaranteeing that citizens of each state receive the privileges and immunities afforded to citizens of other states. The clause protects the right to pursue a common calling or livelihood on substantially equal terms with residents and requires a state to show a substantial reason for any discrimination against nonresidents along with a close fit between that reason and the means chosen.
Penelope Price, a citizen of State A, regularly drives freight into State B for a logistics firm. State B imposes a large extra fee and peak-hour highway restrictions only on nonresident drivers. Penelope sues, claiming the rule blocks her ability to earn a living. The court applies the clause and strikes down the measure because State B offers no substantial justification tied to nonresidents as a distinct problem.
Priscilla Parks, a lawyer licensed in State A, seeks admission to the State B bar without examination. State B requires residency for the reciprocity path and rejects her application. Priscilla sues under the clause. The court invalidates the residency rule because it discriminates against nonresidents in the common calling of law practice without substantial justification.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Paul Peterson, a State A attorney with an established State B practice, applies for admission on motion in State B. The rule limits the benefit to residents only. Paul sues after denial. The court holds the residency requirement violates the clause because it burdens nonresidents' right to practice law without a close fit to any asserted state interest.
Pierce Patterson, a licensed mechanic from State A, moves to State B and applies for a repair shop license. State B demands an extra apprenticeship and higher fees solely from nonresidents. Pierce sues after denial. The court strikes the scheme because it discriminates against out-of-state citizens in pursuing a livelihood without adequate justification.
Pablo Perez, a State A lawyer with extensive State B experience, seeks admission without examination in State B. The court denies the application because he resides outside the state. Pablo sues. The court invalidates the residency rule under the clause because it closes a path to practice without showing a substantial reason closely related to the discrimination.
Patricia Patel, a State A engineer who relocates to State B for work, applies for a state-funded manufacturing grant available only to prior residents. She is denied solely on residency grounds. Patricia sues. The court holds the denial violates the clause because it withholds an employment-related benefit from a nonresident citizen without sufficient justification.
The clause protects citizens of one state from discrimination by another state in fundamental rights, including the pursuit of a common calling or livelihood on substantially equal terms with residents. A state may treat nonresidents differently only if it shows a substantial reason for the difference and a close relationship between that reason and the discriminatory means.
Supporting sources
Yes when the requirement discriminates against nonresidents in the common calling of law practice without substantial justification. Courts have struck down such rules because they close an entire path to admission on the basis of residence alone and fail the close-relationship test even when states cite concerns about availability or discipline.
Supporting sources
Only if the state demonstrates a substantial reason tied to nonresidents as a distinct source of a problem and shows the discrimination is closely related to that reason. Mere economic protectionism or speculation about competence does not suffice, and courts have invalidated extra burdens imposed solely on out-of-state citizens seeking to practice a trade.
Supporting sources
…they have been denied the equal protection of the laws, deprived of property without due process of law, and have been denied privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. We pass to a consideration of those issues. I. Whether the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment inhibits judicial enforcement by state…