STUDY GUIDE EXAM #3

 14th – Deal w/ Privileges Immunities

 Liberty found in two places -> 5th and 14th

Slaughterhouse Cases
Facts: *Dealing with the Economic Rights of butchers in Louisana
 State legislature claimed that the Butchers and slaughterhouses were dumping
remains of animals into Mississippi River
 Law passed giving one butcher company the right to slaughter livestock so they can
regulate one slaughterhouse
 Butchers file suit b/c they cannot work and being put out of business
 Right to pursue their business under the 15th and 14th is violated privileges and
immunities and economic rights.
Issue: In Light of the privileges and immunities and the Property Provision of the DPC of the
14th Amendment. May a state grant a corporate charter to one company to handle the
slaughterhouse business for an entire city in order to protect the public health and safety?
Decision: Yes, upholds monopoly against petitioners claim
Opinion: 13th and the 14th are written as unitary purpose to promote the rights of slaves.
 Butchers do not fall into the category of U.S citizens
 There are differences between U.S citizenship and state citizenship. So rights that are
attached to each are different
 Ancestors/ Slaves automatically became state citizens and citizens of U.S
o “Important order is necessary to convert..” , “man must reside within the
states..”
o Distinction is critical (distinction between citizenship of the U.S and
citizenship of a state)
“Not only may a man be a citizen of the united states w/o being a citizen of a state, but
important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter.”
o Claim falls outside of the privileges and immunities of the United States,
suing against Louisiana
**Narrowly interpreting the 14th – Butchers are not being denied property or Due Process
o Article IV, Section 2, Part I of State Citizens: Outcome Could be different if
Butchers claimed their rights violated because of this section
However, Butcher claims involved violation of the 14th of Part 1 of U.S
citizens

EPC rights of the 14th being weighed with public welfare/common good
Munn v. Illinois
Facts:
 Illinois enacted a law requiring operating licenses and setting the maximum rates
that grain warehouses and elevators would charge for the storage of grain.
 Law enacted to stop the exploitation of farmers by grain elevator operators
 Being charged too much to store prior to the sale of it, and grain storage would have
a virtual monopoly
 Munn violated the law and challenged the constitutionally
Issue: In Light of the Property provision of the Due Process Clause of the 14th and state
police power under the 10th Amendment, May a state regulate the storage of grain in
warehouses, require an operating license for grain warehouses and set the maximum rates
that elevator owners may charge in order to protect public interest?
Decision: Yes, in favor of public interest
Opinion: Supreme court have a right to control
 Common good may require property owners to for fit some of their rights including
they use their private property
 Especially if it needlessly harms people
 Supreme court has a duty to promote the common good which means government
has the power to control maximum rates
“When one devotes his property… must submit to be controlled by the common interest he
has created.
**Common good trumps the assertion of property provision
“ We find that when private property is affected with a public interest it ceases to be of
private right”
Property becomes clothed with public interest when used in a manner of public consequence
and affects the community at large.

“When one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he in effect,
grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for
the common good to the extent of the interest he has create”
 Must submit to the control
Chicago, Milawaukee, St. Paul v. Minnesota
Facts:
 Minnesota state legislature passed a law establishing a commission to oversee the
rate charged by rail road.
 Commission set in place to determine and setting reasonable railroad and
warehouse rates
 Complaint was filed with the commission that the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul
railroad co. was charging unreasonable rates to ship milk
 Commission rules favor of the complainants
 Rail road refused to comply and commission obtained a writ of mandamus from
state Supreme court
 Railroad appeal to U.S Supreme Court, grants certiorari
Issue: In light of the Property Provision of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
May a state legislature create a commission having the judicially unreviewable power of
determining rates that owners of railroads and warehouse may charge an denying the
owners of a basic hearing before the commission?
Decision: NO, law denies the ability to go forth a commission and it take to court
Opinion:
 Deprives the company of a fair hearing
 Denies company procedural due process
 Due Process means fair ness – Procedure of the law and substance has to be fair
 Cannot go before the court to question whether the remedy deprive the company of
fair hearing
 Railroads received no hearing or chance to defend their rates before the commission
 “No hearing is provided for, no summons or notice to the company before the
commission has found what it is to find and declared what it is declare..
 “The question of the reasonableness of a rate of charge for transportation by
railroad company involving the element of reasonableness as it does in regards to
the public is eminently a question for judicial investigation.
 Requires due process of the law for determination,
 If company is deprived of the power of charging reasonable rates for the use of its
property and such deprivation takes in the absence of an investigation by judicial
machinery …
Economic Rights -> Property and Liberty Provision of Due Process

Allgeyer v. Lousiana
Facts:
 Louisiana statute forbade persons and businesses from buying insurance on
property from firms that did not have a license to do business in the state and did
not have representative in the state on whom legal papers could be served.
 Prohibited individual business from purchasing property insurance from companies
outside of state
 Intent was to prevent unethical insurers from taking advantage
 Violated the law by the law by getting property insurance from out of state law
 This legislation was an exercise of the state’s police powers to protect the people of
the state from unscrupulous insurance policies.
 Allgeyer and company disregarded this statute, buying insurance from a mail order
firm based in New York.
 The Company was prosecuted for violating the Supreme Court.
 Allgeyer and Company argued that the Louisiana statute interfered with its liberty
to enter into contracts, a liberty guaranteed by the due process clause of the
Fourteenth.
Issue: In light of the Liberty Provision of the Due Process Clause of the 14th, May a state
legislature pass a law preventing its citizens from entering into contracts with out of state
companies?
Decision: No, strikes down Louisiana law
Opinion:
 The supreme court has the right to forbid out of state insurers from contacting
forbid states citizens
 However the NYS has done no business of insurance within the state of Louisiana
and has not subjected to any provisions of the Louisiana statue.
 Okay for citizens to contact outside state. This is included in the liberty provision
 Liberty means to be free to use in all lawful ways and enter into contracts that can
be essential.
 Louisiana cannot prevent citizens from contacting business outside of state and
entering contracts.
 Any state legislature which prevents entering into contract is an improper and
illegal interference with the conduct of citizen and hi right to contract and carry out
terms o of contract outside and beyond the jurisdiction of the state
Lockner v. New York
Facts:
 Legislative passed a law establishing maximum work hours for bakers
 Prevents bakery workers from working more than 60 hours a week
 Lockner required employees to work more than 60 hours a week and was found
guilty + fined for violating NYS law prohibiting employers from having their
employees work more than 60 hours a week.
Issue: In Light of the Liberty Provision of the Due Process Clause of the 14th May a state pass
a law that interferes with the right of contract between employers and employees if the law
is not directly related to the public health, safety and welfare?
Decision: No, right of contract between employer and employee has been violated
Opinion:
 Right to contract between employees and employers under the Liberty Provision of
the 14th
 Police power is used and should be to protect the public welfare generally
 NYS placed an absolute prohibition, even if employers wanted to work by choice over
the proscribed hour they could not.
 Property Provision derived from the 10th and should not be used to be promote
unnecessary any unreasonable and arbitrary…
 Liberty Provision protects the employer and employee to contract for a work
 Law is directly specifically towards bakery workers only and not generally.
o Weighing economic rights vs. police powers
 Right to contract between employees and employers under the Liberty Provision of
the 14th
 Police power is used and should be to protect the public welfare generally
 NYS placed an absolute prohibition, even if employers wanted to work by choice over
the proscribed hour they could not .
 Property Provision derived from the 10th and should not be used to be promote
unnecessary any unreasonable and arbitrary…
*law interferes with the right to contract
“Trade of a baker is not an unhealthy one to that degree which would authorize the
legislature to interfere with the right to labor, and right of free contract on the part of the
individual”…
Muller v. Oregon
Facts:
 Laws passed by Oregon that prohibited women from working more than 10 hours in
factories and laundries.
 Laundry owner challenged the law violated the liberty to contract by limiting the
amount of hours women can work
Issue: In light of the liberty provision of the due process clause of the 14th, may a state pass
a law prohibiting women from working laundries and factories more than 10 hours a day?
Decision: Yes, Upholds states Law
Opinion:
 Oregon’s law reflects a general view that because of the physical characteristics
women should not work long hours.
 Physical characteristics of women justified with the right of legislatures to protect
women.
 Defines women as a class needing protection based on the traditional concepts of a
woman’s role in society.
 Focuses heavily on the physical weakness of women and their inherent reliance on
men for support.
 Women are compared to children and implied not completely competent to enter
into their own labor contracts.
 Women are were unequal and inferior to men.
 Sexes differ in structure of body, physical strength
 “Women’s physical structure and performance of maternal functions place her at a
disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious.”
 Burdens of motherhood
 “Injurious effects upon the body and as healthy mothers are essential to vigorous off
spring, the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest and
care in order to preserve the strength and vigor of the race”
Adair v. United States
Facts:
 Article 1- Lays out the powers of congress, Power to regulate interstate commerce
 Congress struck down the use of yellow dog contracts.
 Interstate railroad could no longer place in its labor contracts a provision that the
employee cannot join a labor union.
 1898 passed labor statute to outlaw the use of yellow dog contracts between
workers and employers in which workers agree not to be a union member
 Adair violates 1989 law passed by firing employed by the railroad who joined a union
.
 On appeal to the court, the congressional law outlawing the yellow dog contract was
challenged by Adair on the grounds that the law interfered with the liberty to enter
into a contract without due process of law in violation of the fifth Amendment.
 The Supreme Court agreed with Adair and utilized substantive due process as the
principal constitutional basis of striking down the legislation.
Issue: In light of the liberty and Property Provision?? of the Due process clause of the 5th
amendment may congress forbid interstate railroads from placing in their labor contracts a
provision prohibiting employees from be a member of a labor union
Decision: No, congress has exceeded its power. Freedom of contract.
Opinion:
 Liberty under the 5th includes the right to enter a contract
 Power from employer to employee to enter into a contract
 It is the legal right of Adair to dismiss an employee whose employer and employee
have an equal right.
 Important to preserve the balance of freedom which exists between employers and
employees
 Employer and Employee have an equality of right, and any legislation that disturbs
that equality is an arbitrary interference w/ liberty of contract
 “Invasion of personal liberty and property guaranteed by the 5th”
 Employer has the right to prescribe terms upon which the employee would be
accepted. And it is employees right to (as he chooses) to become an employee of the
company based on the terms offered to him.

 There is no such connection between interstate commerce and membership in a

labor organization as to authorize congress to make it a crime against the United
State for an agent of an interstate carrier to discharge an employee because of such
membership on his part


Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:
Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion:

Facts:
Issue:
Decision:
Opinion: