 Show
A Supreme Court case cluster, the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, was a 14th Amendment challenge to a Louisiana regulation limiting butchering to only select slaughterhouses. Though the ruling rejected the butchers' claims, Justice Miller suggested First Amendment rights could be incorporated to states. This is a wood engraving, circa 1860, of a Cincinnati, Ohio, slaughterhouse scene. (Image via Library of Congress, public domain) The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), represents the first instance in which the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment. New Orleans butchers said state regulations violated 14th AmendmentIn this case, which was a consolidation of three similar cases, the Court rejected a claim that butchers in New Orleans filed against a set of state regulations directing that all butchering take place in selected abattoirs. The butchers argued that these regulations violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Court rejected butchers' claim, narrowly interpreted 14th AmendmentIn its ruling, the Court offered a narrow interpretation of that clause, with significant implications for the future application of First Amendment rights to the states. In rejecting the butchers’argument, Justice Samuel Miller distinguished between the limited number of privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens, which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the wider set of rights possessed by state citizens, which are protected at the state level. Miller thought the pervading purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment had been that of protecting former slaves, and he hesitated to expand its protection for fear of altering the distribution of powers between the state and national governments. He thought that the state regulations at issue, which appear to have been influenced both by genuine health concerns and by legislative deal making, could be justified as a legitimate exercise of state police powers. Justice Miller suggested First Amendment rights may be incorporated to statesSignificantly, in describing the limited number of rights that he believed the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected, Miller listed “[t]he right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances,” which he presumably derived from the First Amendment. He connected privileges and immunities with the right “to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its office, [and] to engage in administering its functions.” Four justices, led by Justice Stephen Field, dissented. Field focused on using the Fourteenth Amendment not to protect the rights embodied in the First Amendment but to protect economic rights. 14th Amendment later incorporated First Amendment rights to statesThe “incorporation” of provisions of the First Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment did not begin until the Court’s decision in Gitlow v. New York (1925), and in this and in later cases the Court chose to rely chiefly on the due process clause rather than on the privileges and immunities clause. John Vile is a professor of political science and dean of the Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University. He is co-editor of the Encyclopedia of the First Amendment. This article was originally published in 2009. Send Feedback on this article journal article The Yale Law Journal Vol. 109, No. 4 (Jan., 2000) , pp. 643-744 (102 pages) Published By: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. https://doi.org/10.2307/797502 https://www.jstor.org/stable/797502 Read and download Log in through your school or library Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Monthly Plan
Yearly Plan
Journal Information The Yale Law Journal publishes original scholarly work in all fields of law and legal study. The journal contains articles, essays, and book reviews written by professors and legal practitioners throughout the world, and slightly shorter notes and comments written by individual journal staff members. The journal is published monthly from October through June with the exception of February. Publisher Information For over a century, the Yale Law Journal has been at the forefront of legal scholarship, sparking conversation and encouraging reflection among scholars and students, as well as practicing lawyers and sitting judges and Justices. The Journal strives to shape discussion of the most important and relevant legal issues through a rigorous scholarship selection and editing process. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. What was decided by the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873?The Slaughterhouse Cases, resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1873, ruled that a citizen's "privileges and immunities," as protected by the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment against the states, were limited to those spelled out in the Constitution and did not include many rights given by the individual states.
What effect did the Slaughterhouse Cases have on African Americans?By declaring most civil rights to be aspects of state rather than of federal citizenship, Miller unwittingly deprived the federal government of jurisdiction over many problems of the political and social equality of blacks.
What was the Supreme Court vote in the dissent Slaughterhouse Cases?5–4 decision for various
The Court held that the monopoly violated neither the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments, reasoning that these amendments were passed with the narrow intent to grant full equality to former slaves.
What was the effect of the Slaughterhouse Cases?As a result of the Slaughterhouse Cases, the butchers in New Orleans were forced to deal with the monopoly granted to Crescent City Livestock. But the lasting outcome was a limited understanding of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
|
How was the Supreme Courts decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 a setback for African Americans?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
