Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985)
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper is a cornerstone Privileges and Immunities Clause decision that limits a state's ability to exclude nonresidents from practicing a profession within its borders.
Does New Hampshire's residency requirement for bar admission violate the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause by discriminating against citizens of other states in their pursuit of the common calling of practicing law?
Under the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, a state may not discriminate against citizens of other states with respect to fundamental rights and important economic activities, including the pursuit of a common calling, unless: (1) the state demonstrates a substantial reason for the differential treatment, showing that nonresidents are a peculiar source of the problem the state seeks to address, and (2) the discriminatory means bear a close or substantial relationship to the state's objectives, considering whether less restrictive, non-discriminatory alternatives would adequately serve those objectives. The practice of law qualifies as a protected common calling under the Clause.
Yes. The New Hampshire residency requirement for bar admission violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause because practicing law is a protected common calling, and the state failed to demonstrate a substantial reason for discriminating against nonresidents or that residency bears a close relationship to its asserted interests. The judgment in favor of Piper was affirmed.
Piper is a leading authority constraining state protectionism in professional licensing, especially with respect to bar admissions. It cements the principle that the pursuit of a common calling, including the practice of law, is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and that states must justify discrimination against nonresidents with substantial reasons closely related to their objectives. For law students, the case is a model of the Privileges and Immunities analysis and an anchor for exam answers involving interstate economic rights, the availability of less restrictive alternatives, and the boundary between professional regulation and unconstitutional residency-based discrimination. Piper also laid groundwork for subsequent decisions invalidating other residency preferences in bar admission contexts.