Historical Context and Purpose of the Privileges and Immunities Clause

The Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution aimed to place citizens of each state on an equal footing with others. This clause was a measure to foster national unity and ensure fair treatment. The framers drew inspiration from English common law and the Articles of Confederation.

During the Constitutional Convention, debates emphasized the need for interstate equality. James Madison and others believed that without such protections, states might impose discriminatory laws favoring their own citizens over those of other states. The aim was to prevent economic isolationism and ensure free movement of citizens.

The English common law principle of "comity" called for mutual recognition of laws among jurisdictions. The Articles of Confederation had a similar provision, but it lacked practical enforcement. The framers recognized the need for a stronger federal mandate.

Key Points:

• Inclusion in the Constitution was a response to practices that hindered interstate commerce and travel.
• The framers viewed interstate equality as crucial to balancing national identity and state sovereignty.
• The Clause was meant to prevent discrimination by ensuring equal treatment for out-of-state citizens.
• This wasn't just about commerce but also fundamental civil liberties.

In Supreme Court interpretations, this clause has been pivotal in ensuring a national economy and safeguarding civil rights. Decisions like Paul v. Virginia emphasized that special privileges afforded state residents should equally apply to those from other states.

Legal Interpretations and Key Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court has clarified the Privileges and Immunities Clause through several key decisions. In Paul v. Virginia (1868), the Court ruled that corporations do not enjoy the status of "citizens" under the Clause, emphasizing that its protection was intended for individual persons.

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman (1988) addressed a Virginia rule that permitted qualified out-of-state attorneys to gain admission to the Virginia Bar through reciprocity, provided they were permanent Virginia residents. The Court found this residency requirement unconstitutional, determining that citizenship and residency are essentially interchangeable for analytical purposes.

McBurney v. Young (2013) further refined the interpretation of the Clause. The Court upheld Virginia's Freedom of Information Act, which granted access to public records solely to Virginia citizens. The Court reasoned that access to public records is not a fundamental right and does not impact one's ability to earn a living or travel freely.

"These cases illustrate the Court's careful balancing act between necessary state governance and preventing discriminatory state behavior against non-residents."

The evolution of interpretations signifies the living nature of the Constitution, adapting foundational principles to contemporary issues while maintaining the framers' intent to foster national unity and equality.

The Right to Interstate Travel

The right to interstate travel, protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, ensures that American citizens can move freely between states, access privileges available in other states, and enjoy the same civil rights and benefits without restrictive barriers. This principle is fundamental to preserving national unity.

In Saenz v. Roe (1999), the Court elaborated on the right to travel, highlighting three components:

1. The right to enter and leave another state
2. The right to be treated as a welcome visitor
3. The right to be treated equally if one decides to become a permanent resident

Durational residency requirements have been a point of contention. In Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), the Court struck down a law requiring a year's residency to receive welfare benefits, deeming it a violation of the right to travel. However, in Sosna v. Iowa (1975), the Court upheld a one-year residency requirement for filing a divorce, recognizing the state's interest in determining genuine residency.

The right to interstate travel remains central to ensuring that the United States functions as a unified constitutional republic rather than a loose affiliation of semi-autonomous states. It preserves the mobility of citizens, protects equality across state lines, and prevents parochial practices that could fracture national unity.

Challenges to Abortion Travel Bans Post-Dobbs

Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, which overturned the constitutionally protected right to abortion, states have begun regulating interstate travel for abortion. This development raises questions about the principles of interstate travel and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

In Yellowhammer Fund v. Attorney General, a federal district court in Alabama contested a law criminalizing assisting or facilitating an abortion for an Alabama resident outside the state. The court ruled against the law, grounding its decision in the constitutional right to interstate travel.

Judge Myron Thompson upheld that the right to travel includes the pursuit of lawful opportunities available in other states. He drew from historical precedents such as Crandall v. Nevada and Edwards v. California, which solidify the understanding that states cannot obstruct travel by imposing burdens on those who facilitate travel for others.

The court rejected Alabama's argument distinguishing between restricting actual travelers versus those assisting them, pointing out the potential for severe overreach. This decision aligns with the historical intent behind the Privileges and Immunities Clause and fortifies the structure of federalism.

These challenges underscore the tension between state sovereignty and the preservation of individual rights as protected by the Constitution. As these cases progress, they will continue to shape the contours of interstate travel rights, reaffirming the foresight of the Constitution's framers.

Implications for Other Areas of Law

The Privileges and Immunities Clause has implications beyond abortion travel bans. It ensures that states cannot impose undue burdens on citizens from other states for engaging in activities that are lawful across state lines.

This principle extends to areas such as marijuana use and gambling, where state laws vary significantly. The Clause restricts states from penalizing individuals for engaging in legal activities of another state, just as seen in Yellowhammer v. Attorney General.

Areas potentially affected:

• Alcohol sales regulations
• Firearm possession laws
• Access to medical treatments

States must be cautious not to encroach upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Clause.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause fortifies the federal structure of the United States, balancing state sovereignty with national solidarity. It establishes a broader precedent that preserves the individual's ability to move freely, engage in diverse economic and social activities, and enjoy the benefits of citizenship across all states.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause stands as a testament to the framers' vision of a united and equal nation. It continues to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens, ensuring that state lines do not divide our shared liberties. This enduring principle reinforces the strength and cohesion of our constitutional republic.

1. Lash KT. The Origins of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Part I: "Privileges and Immunities" as an Antebellum Term of Art. Georgetown Law Journal. 2010;98(5):1241-1302.
2. Antieau CJ. Paul's Perverted Privileges or the True Meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four. William & Mary Law Review. 1968;9(1):1-38.
3. Wildenthal BH. The Lost Compromise: Reassessing the Early Understanding in Court and Congress on Incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio State Law Journal. 2000;61(3):1051-1174.
4. Tribe LH. Saenz Sans Prophecy: Does the Privileges or Immunities Revival Portend the Future – Or Reveal the Structure of the Present? Harvard Law Review. 1999;113(1):110-198.
5. Chemerinsky E. The Supreme Court and the Fourteenth Amendment: The Unfulfilled Promise. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 1991;25(4):1143-1158.