Fourteenth Amendment, Slaughterhouse Cases

[A18]

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)

The cases arose when, in 1869, the Louisiana legislature passed an act ordering all animals imported for consumption in the city to be landed at certain places, and all intended for food to be slaughtered there. The same law also conferred on seventeen persons the exclusive right to maintain landings for cattle and to erect slaughter-houses, chartering them under the name of The Crescent City Live-stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company. This law was challenged by the Live Stock Dealers' and Butchers' Association, whose members would be prohibited from competing with the new monopoly.

Refusing to become a "perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States," the U.S. Supreme Court repudiated the natural law sympathies of the dissenters, opting instead for a strict textual analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The judgments of Supreme Court of Louisiana, upholding the act, were affirmed.

[Emsworth]

The decision was correct. The Constitution does not protect a "right to engage in a lawful occupation"; nor does it constitute an enactment of "natural law."

Unfortunately, the dicta in Justice Miller's opinion are extremely vague and unclear. There is no simple indication of what the privileges or immunities clause does truly mean (i.e., incorporation of the Bill of Rights).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yes, the decision was both badly written, and extremely partisan.

Since that decision, the 'priviledges and immunities' clause has been largely ignored and the 'due process' clause distorted all out of shape to accomplish what should have been accomplished under the priviledges and immunities clause..