The Slaughter House Cases(1873): Economic Liberties, 13th, 14th A, Monopolies

t Louisiana had created a partial monopoly of the slaughtering business and gave it to one company. Competitors argued that this created "involuntary servitude," abridged "privileges and immunities," denied "equal protection of the laws," and deprived them of "liberty and property without due process of law." Did the creation of the monopoly violate the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments?

n Majority: MILLER: No. The involuntary servitude claim did not forbid limits on the right to use one's property. The equal protection claim was misplaced since it was established to void laws discriminating against blacks. The due process claim simply imposes the identical requirements on the states, as the 5^th A. imposes on the national government. The Court devoted most of its opinion to a narrow construction of the privileges and immunities clause, which was interpreted to apply to national citizenship, not state citizenship.

n Dissent: FIELD, SWAYNE, BRADLEY: All grants of exclusive privilege violates the equal pursuit of the ordinary avocations of life among citizens. The dissents influenced future proponents of property rights and liberty of contract. The same “police power” would be used to abolish the monopoly and reintroduce competition

Palko v. Connecticut(1937): Double Jeopardy, Due Process(14^th A.)

t Frank Palko had been charged with first-degree murder. He was convicted instead of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial; this time the court found Palko guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death. Does Palko's second conviction violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the 5^th A. because this protection applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause?

n Majority: CARDOZO: The Supreme Court upheld Palko's second conviction. In his majority opinion, Cardozoformulated principles that were to direct the Court's actions for the next 3 decades. He noted that some Bill of Rightsguarantees--such as freedom of thought and speech--are fundamental, and that the 14^th A.’s due process clause absorbed these fundamental rights and applied them to the states. Protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right. Palko died in Connecticut's gas chamber in April 1938.

Adamson v. California(1947): 5^th A. not part of Due Process(14^th A.)

t Adamson was convicted in California of murder in the first degree. During the trial, the prosecutor, in accordance with a California law, made comments to the jury which highlighted Adamson's decision not to testify on his own behalf. Is a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against himself applicable in state courts and protected by the 14^th A.'s DUE PROCESS clause?

n Majority: REED: The Court found that the 14^th A.'s due process clause did not extend to defendants a 5^th A. right not to bear witness against themselves in state courts. Citing Palko, Justice Reed argued that the 14^th A. did not extend carte blanche all of the immunities and privileges of the Bill of Rightsto individuals at the state level.

n Dissent: BLACK, DOUGLAS, MURPHY, RUTLEDGE: In a lengthy dissent which included a deep investigation of the 14^th A.’s history, Justice Blackargued for the absolute and complete application of the Bill of Rightsto the states.

Date: 2015-01-02; view: 840