Constitutional Law
83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Study notes for Slaughter-House Cases: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The Slaughter-House Cases reaffirmed that the states can regulate economic activity under their police powers without violating the Thirteenth or Fourteenth Amendments.
The Slaughter-House Cases are foundational in understanding the limitations of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court's narrow interpretation focused on the distinction between national and state citizenship, thereby restricting the scope of protections meant to safeguard economic rights. It highlights the balance between state police powers and individual rights, underscoring issues of monopolistic practices versus public health concerns.
Professors often emphasize that this case set a precedent for future cases regarding economic liberties and the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment protections. It also lays the groundwork for discussions about whether rights concerning trade and professions are considered fundamental, taking into account the social and political context of the post-Civil War period when the amendments were adopted.
PIM for Privileges, Immunities, and Monopoly: the ruling constricts economic freedoms under the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| United States v. Lopez | Lopez involved congressional power under the Commerce Clause, whereas Slaughter-House focused on state police power and the limitations of individual rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. |
| City of New Orleans v. Dukes | Dukes expanded on economic regulations and equal protection, while Slaughter-House limited the scope of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. |
| Washington v. Glucksberg | Glucksberg addressed substantive due process and the recognition of rights, unlike Slaughter-House which limited economic freedoms under the Privileges or Immunities Clause. |
The ruling supports state sovereignty and the ability of states to enact regulations protecting public health, which can justify the regulation of monopolies.
Critics argue that the decision restricts individual economic liberties and the ability to freely pursue a trade without undue governmental interference.
This case is often used to examine the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment and the balance of state power versus individual rights, particularly in written exams or hypotheticals regarding economic liberties and public health regulation.