The Privileges or Immunities Clause promised that states couldn't abridge the rights of U.S. citizens. The clause seemed to be the Fourteenth Amendment's main tool for protecting individual rights against state power. But in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court gutted it.
Five years after Reconstruction began, New Orleans butchers sued a state-granted monopoly, arguing it violated their privileges and immunities as citizens—including the right to earn a living. Justice Samuel Miller wrote that the clause protected only narrow federal rights like access to federal courts and coastal navigation, not broad civil liberties. The decision surprised many Reconstruction Republicans who thought the clause would be the amendment's engine for protecting fundamental rights.
As a practical matter, the clause sat dormant for 150 years. Legal scholars widely regard the Slaughter-House decision as one of the Constitution's great mistakes. The Court forced the work of protecting civil rights onto the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause instead—a detour that shaped American constitutional law ever since. In recent years, originalist scholars like Justice Clarence Thomas have called for reviving the clause by correctly reading what it meant in 1868. But as of 2025, the Privileges or Immunities Clause remains largely useless in constitutional litigation.
The Slaughter-House Cases show how a single Supreme Court decision can rewrite the Constitution's meaning for generations. It also shows that constitutional interpretation matters enormously. A different reading of the clause in 1873 might have created stronger protections for economic liberty and individual rights much earlier in American history.
People often don't realize the Privileges or Immunities Clause exists or matters. In fact, it's one of the most important clauses the Supreme Court has effectively ignored. When you learn that the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause protect fundamental rights, you're seeing the Constitution's "Plan B"—the backup system that emerged only after the Court rejected the primary mechanism.
The Slaughter-House Cases show how a single Supreme Court decision can rewrite the Constitution's meaning for generations. It also shows that constitutional interpretation matters enormously. A different reading of the clause in 1873 might have created stronger protections for economic liberty and individual rights much earlier in American history.
People often don't realize the Privileges or Immunities Clause exists or matters. In fact, it's one of the most important clauses the Supreme Court has effectively ignored. When you learn that the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause protect fundamental rights, you're seeing the Constitution's "Plan B"—the backup system that emerged only after the Court rejected the primary mechanism.