Case Brief 1 - Slaughter - House Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

It's a case brief that everyone has to write and turn in every class after reading cases....

Description

POL 226, Dr. Harriger – Janice Park Slaughter – House Cases 16 Wall. 36 (1873) Facts: Legally Relevant Facts : “The legislature of Louisiana passed an act granting to a corporation, which it created, the exclusive right for 25 years to operate slaughterhouses”, and “prohibited other persons from competing with the corporation” (p. 525). This case is in the court because the plaintiff thought this exclusive grant of monopoly violates the Constitution of the United States in that “1) it creates an involuntary servitude forbidden by the thirteenth article of amendment; 2) that it abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; 3) that it denies to the plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws; 4) that it deprives them of their property without due process of law” (p.526). Procedurally Relevant Facts : Before coming into the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Louisiana declared that this exclusive grant of monopoly privilege was “a police regulation for the health and comfort of the people” and it did not “violate the constitutional rights of the other citizens to exercise their trade and occupation” (p.525) Issue(s): “Whether this exclusive grant of monopoly privilege was a police regulation for the health and comfort of the people or whether it violated the constitutional rights of other citizens to exercise their trade and occupation” (p.525) Holding: “The judgement of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in these cases are affirmed” (p.527) Reasoning: “There is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics of circumstances in the individual”, but the plaintiffs in error disregarded this difference. Their argument is based on “the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same” (p.526). However, when the amendment mentions “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State,” the word citizen of a State was left out, which implies that is did not intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State. The foundational privileges and immunities that all citizens of the free government hold are “protection by government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the

POL 226, Dr. Harriger – Janice Park government may prescribe for the general good of the whole” (p.526). It is not the purpose of the fourteenth amendment to transfer the security and protection of all these rights from the States to the Federal government. “Such a construction followed by the reversal of the judgements of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in these cases, would constitute this court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States” (p.526). Dissenting Opinions: Mr. Justice Field “The act of Louisiana … [is] unaccompanied by any public considerations, where a right to pursue a lawful and necessary calling … is taken away and vested exclusively for twenty-five years” (p.527) “In all these cases there is a recognition of the equality of right among citizens in the pursuit of the ordinary avocations of life, and a declaration that all grants exclusive privileges in contravention of this equality, are against common right, and void.” (p.527) Mr. Justice Bradley “ In my judgement, the right of any citizen to follow whatever lawful employment he chooses to adopt (submitting himself to all lawful regulations) is one of his most valuable rights, and one which the legislature of State cannot invade, whether restrained by its own constitution or not.”...