vol45p61

Transcript

1 W H I F S L A U G H T E R -H O U S E H A D B E E N A T C D E D D I F F E R E N T L Y ? I E D * M T R O O S E V E L T R I I I K E I years ar hy askin g us to overr ule 150, 140 e of pri or la w . . . W] “[ you can re ach your re sul t und e r sub st ant when due [pr oce ss] . . . you ive 1 [you ar e] buc king for a . . . pla ce on some la w sch ool fa cul ty[?] ” ess unl T T O D U C N I O N I R 2 ic t of Colu mbia v. n le r , the tr Supr eme Cour t sur pri sed m any veter an Dis I Hel t- wat che rs by bre at hin g li fe bac k int o the lon g- m ori b u n d Sec ond Cour end Am . T he fe der al gov er nm ent ’s power to re st ri ct ind i vi dua l gun m ent p m ean ingfu ll y li m it ed, the Cour t wrot e: shi the Sec ond Am end m ent owner was car e[ t nte e ind ividu al ri ght to pos ses s and s] ry weap ons in cas e of “guara h 3 fr ont at ion .” con 4 le r dea lt onl y with fe der al re gulat ion . Wh at abo ut the st at es? For But Hel roa a y, th e S upr eme Cour t has app tur che d que st ion s abo ut whet her a cen over ti cul ar Bil l of Rights li ber ty cou ld b e ass er te d agains t the st at es by askin g par the her th e ri ght was “i nco rpo ra te d” in Four te ent h Am end m ent ’s Due whet 5 6 s Cla use . Nonet hel ess , when Mc Donal d v. Cit y of Chic ago pre sen te d the Pro ces Sec ond end m ent que st ion , Ala n Gura , the pet it ioner s’ la w y er , asked the Cour t Am ta ke a di er ent ta ck. to ff n dec idi ng whet her the Sec ond Am end m ent m e t her te st tha for Rat the 7 ti on in the Due Pr oce ss Cla use , Gur a s ora est ed t he Court sho uld ask orp inc ugg her pr ivate pos ses si on o f f ir ear m s wa s on e of th e pr ivil eges or imm uni ti es whet U.S. Four ti zenshi p pr ote ct ed by the of te ent h Am end m ent ’s Pri vileges or ci w P of La w , University of P ennsy lvania La sor Scho ol. Thanks to G erard Magliocca * rofes or organizing this Sy m po sium , to m y f ellow f ants f or their cont ribu tion s, and to the edito rs particip of Ind ian a Law Review f or their edito rial the . Rebecca Sivitz pro vided valuable resea rch assistance assistance . 1. Tra nscript of Oral A rgum ent at 6-7 , McDon ald v. C i ty of Chicago, 13 0 S. Ct. 30 20 (20 10 08 -15 21 ), 2 01 0 WL 71 00 88 at * 6-7 (qu otin g Justice Scalia). ) (No. 55 4 U. 70 (20 08 ). 2. S. 5 at 5 92 . 3. Id. 4. See id. For early case s, see, f or exa m ple, Hurtad o v. Calif orni a , 11 0 U.S. 5. 6 (18 8 4 ) , and 51 Chicag . & Q. R. Co. v. City o f Ch icag o , 1 66 U.S. 22 o B 89 7). 6 (1 6. 13 0 S . Ct. 30 20 (20 10 ). 7. The m ost f requen tly cited f ormulation of the selec tive inco rpo ration test is pro babl y that w o v. Con necticut , 30 2 U.S. 31 9 (19 37 ), Palko hich ask ed w heth er the asse rted right w as “so f roo ted in th e traditio ns and con science of ou r peo ple as to be ranked as f un dam ental.” Id. at 3 25 34 (qu g Snyder v. Massac hu setts, 29 1 U.S. 97 , 10 5 (19 otin ), overruled in pa rt by Malloy v. Hogan, 37 8 U. S. 1 (19 64 )).

2 62 I ANA LAW REV I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI 8 9 m es Cla use . I n The Sla ught er- Hous e Case s , the Cour t had ado pte d a m ti I uni ng o f Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es Cla use th at exc lud ed t he Bil l of Rights re adi the ing] . es fr it s scope , but, Gura cont end ed, tha t “nar row [r ead . . sho uld ti ber li om 0 1 now be re j ect ed.” ic ust es’ J st ion s at ora l ar gum ent ind ic a t e d n o ent hus ia sm for he T que si der ing Sla ught er- Hous e . J ust ic e Sca li a, in par ti cul ar , demanded whet her re con “e ir er ” t o r eac h Gur a’ s des was ed re sul t via Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es tha n it asi pro the t’ s est abl is hed sub st ant ive due Cour ces s app roa ch (Gur a admitt ed ough thr 1 1 ) and whet her a Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es j uri spr ude nce it ight end up was not m 1 2 ame tes t ( Gura admitt ed i t might). ng exac y the s usi tl s the end , the Cour t n the Due Pro ces rou te . Gura got J ust ic e T homas’s I went for his Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es the ory, but vote even T homas see m ed h a rd- pre d to exp la in why it woul d ma ke a p r a ct ic al dif fe re nce . His con cur re nce sse er ed ar gum ent tha t the Cour t’ s Due Pro ces s app roa ch to fun damenta l ri ghts off an ble the at ic (i t “st ra ins cr edu li ty for even pro m ost cas ual use r of word s” and m was 1 3 cks ula rl y dan gerous ” bec aus e it la rt a guidi ng pri nci ple ). However, his “pa ic is est ed t u rn to Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es did not see m to be m uch of an sugg ent the improvem on l y r est ri ct ion he was abl e to pla ce on the ri ghts he woul d : 1 4 m t cl aus e was tha t the y be “f unda r ent al ,” whic h is the same cognize tha re unde m it the Cour t has obs er ved, wit h m ore o r li l e s s ri gor, in it s sub st ant ive due 1 5 1 6 spr ude nce . T hus , as Sca li ces implie d dur ing ora l ar gum ent , a pro s j uri a re vital ized Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es Cla use woul d pro bab ly si m ply ta ke over the fun ct cur re ntl y perf ormed by the Due P roc ess Cla use . ion hat m ore or le ss the aca demic con sen sus . Sl a u ght er- Hous e was T is 8 1 7 1 1 9 ic iou sl y, g—bla egious ly. (Pi ck your adverb .) But ta y, ntl m al wron egr See nscript of Oral A rgum ent, supra no te 1, at 4 . Tra 8. U.S. (16 Wa ll.) 3 6 (1 87 2). 83 9. . McD on ald , 1 30 S. Ct. at 3 02 8. 10 11 . nscript of Oral A rgum ent, supra no te 1, at 6 . Tra . Id 1. 12 . at 1 06 McD ald , 1 30 . Ct. at 3 on 2 (Tho m as, J., con currin g). 13 S. . Id . at 30 67 (qu otin g Corfield v. Cory ell, 6 F. Cas. 54 6, 55 14 2 (C.C.E. D. P a. 18 23 ) (No. 1-5 32 )). 30 70 . e.g. , Wa shin gton v. G lucksberg, 52 15 U.S. See, 2 , 7 19 -21 (19 97 ) (describin g 1 m etho do logy ). Thom as did advert briefly to the view that the Bill of Rights exhausts the m eaning of P s or Im m un ities, see McD on ald , 13 0 S. Ct. at 30 75 -76 (Thom as, J., concu rring), bu t this rivilege claim babl do es no t help m uch giv en pro the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth A m endme nt, pro y s itself that to a no nexhaustive list of rights. For a rece nt be valuable discussio n of the Ninth A m endme nt, and see Ry an C. William s, The Ninth Amendment as a Rule of Con struction , 11 1 C O L U M . L. R E V . 49 8 (20 11 ). supra . nscript of Oral A 16 ent, Tra no te 1, at 1 1. rgum 17 . A lan G ura et al., The Tell-Ta le Privileges or Immuni ties Clau se , 20 1 0 C A T O S U P . C T . 10 R . 1 63 , 1 83 (20 V ). E 18 . Id . 19 . Brief f or Con stitut , al La w P rofes sors as Am ici Curiae Sup po rting P etition ers at 33 ion

3 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 63 THE SLAUGHTER uli overr woul d not cha nge m uch abo ut the cur re nt st at e of co n s t i t u t ion al ng it 2 0 he bri ef for con st it uti ona l la w pro fe sso rs as amici cur ia e in Mc Donal d , la w. T some of cef ul la nguage abo ut the er ror r Sla ught er- Hous e , con cl ude d tha t af te for er wit on h e somewhat ant ic li m act ic obs h vatio n tha t “[ a] s pro fe sso rs of ti sec t it uti ona l la w, we loo k f orwa rd to the day when we can te ach our st ude nts con st 2 1 u t cor re ct ed thi s grievous er ror .” I t sho uld s eme r p r is e no Cour how Supr the at e J ust ic es th e un m oved. th one wer m in thi s Art ic le is not to dis tur b tha t con sen sus . Reviving the My ai the or m uni ti es Clau se woul d proba bly not cha nge m re sul ts in cas es I vileges Pri ntl y dec ide d as par t of our equ al pro te ct ion or fun damenta l ri ghts cur re 2 2 ive due pro ces s j uri spr ude sub . I n par ti cul ar , it woul d not m ake the st ant nce pro m s ass oci at ed wit h tha t li ne of cas es go away; j udi ci al ide nti fi cat ion of ble numerat ed damenta l ri ghts is going to be pro ble m at ic no m at te r what the une fun 2 3 al k. xtu hoo te int er est ing que st ion , I wil l sugg est , is not w h a t m ight hap pen in T he the ure if the cl aus e re tur ned to li fe , what woul d have hap pen ed in the pas t if fut but had not bee n kill ed in the fi rs t pla ce. And the it for suc h a cou nte rf act ual puzzle his y, I wil l ar gue, is not what the Cour t’ s j uri spr ude nce of Pri vile ge s o r tor m pos uni ti es woul d loo k li ke. T h e r e ar e two I si bil it ie s, and we ar e qui te m m ia r fa h the m . T hey ar e what we now ca l l il E q u a l Pro te ct ion and wit (s ubs ta nti ve) Due Pro ces s. I nst ead , the re al puzzle is what Equa l Pro te ct ion and Due Pro ces s woul d loo k li ke the Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es Cla use h ad ful fi ll ed it s m is si on ra the r tha n if si ng tor ch to the m . I wil l sugg est tha t the y m ight loo k very dif fe re nt, and pas the our , con st it uti ona l j uri spr ude nce t as a whol e, m ight loo k so m ewha t bet te r. tha uen hus re woul d have bee n a re al con seq the ce to re ach ing the re sul ts we now T , a ch thr ough Equa l Pro te ct ion and Due Pro ces s thr ough Pri vileges or re m s uni t i e I i n st ead : I t woul d have fr eed up one or bot h of tho se cl aus es to do m us ng of value. Sla ught er- Hous e cos t se somethi ng, I wil l ar gue, not somethi el 2 4 it kill ed the Pri vileges or I m mu n i t i e s bec Cla use —t he sub st anc e of tha t aus e cl e m ade it int o our doc tr ine aus I t cos t us somethi ng bec aus e the pri ce anyway. of getti ng Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es thr ough Due Pro ces s and Equa l Pro te ct ion was the igina l a nd i nte nde d su bst anc e of th ose cl aus es. or ef he t Par t of thi s Art ic le giv es a bri rs des cr ipt ion of the Sla ught er- Hous e T fi ase and the int er pre ta ti on of Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es whic h c m aj ori ty the McDon y of Chicago, 1 30 S. Ct. 302 0 (201 0) (No. 08-1 52 1), 20 09 W L 409 95 04 at * 33 . ald v. Cit ties . e.g. , Jef f 20 Rosen, Tran slatin g the Privileges or Immuni See, Clau se , 66 G E O . W AS H . rey L. R E V . 1 24 1, 12 42 (19 98 ) (sugges ting th at “ Loch ner w ill b ite us o ne wa y or the o ther”). 21 . for Con stitut ion al La w P rofes sors as A m ici Curi ae, supra no te 19 , at 3 5. Brief . 9), s Justice Thom as put it in Sa enz v. Ro e , 5 26 U.S. 48 9 (1 99 22 a revitalize d P rivilege s A “displace, Im un ities or w ou ld p r o b ably m rather than augm ent, po rtion s of ou r equal Clause pro tection and sub stantive du e pro cess ju rispru dence.” Id. at 5 28 (Thom as, J., d issenting). the 23 general ly Kerm it Roo sev elt III, Forg et See Fun da mental s: Fixing Su bsta ntive Due . Process , 8 U. P A . J. C O N ST . L. 983 (20 06 ) (describi ng sub stantive du e pro cess m etho do logy ). (16 24 See Slau ghter-House Cases, 83 U.S. . Wa ll.) 3 6 (1 87 2).

4 64 I I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI ANA LAW REV d. ado t I I goes on to dis cus s the int er pre ta ti ons pro pos ed by the dis sen ts . pte Par ight I I con si der t what Equa l Pro te ct ion and Due Pro ces s m I have loo ked And Par s th rt had ado pte d on e or bot e Cou th e di sse nts . ke if li h of S L A U G H T E R -H O U S E A N D T H E E V I S C E R A T I O N O F P R I V I L E G E S O I I M M U N I T I E S . R n , the Loui si ana le gisla tur e ena ct ed a st at ute tha t cr eat ed the Cre sce nt I 1869 pan Live- Land ing and Sla ughter - Hous e Com ck y and gav e it the y Sto Cit ive ri ght to engage in the sl aughte ri ng of li vesto ck wit hin New Orl exc s and lus ean 2 5 . T he eviden t pur pos e was to pro te ct the envir publ ic hea lt h fr om the fi lt h s ons it 2 6 ri ct ed but che ry, whic h con tr ibu te d to re gular out bre aks of cho le ra . of unr est r butc Othe m it te d to use the Cre sce nt Cit y fa ci li ti es upon paym ent her s were per 2 7 e of aff fe e. Unhap py wit h this st at bed ai rs , they sue d, c hal le nging esc a pr ri of st at ute on every avail abl e ground, inc lud ing the T hir te ent h Am end m ent the and 2 8 e Fo urt een th. “[ F]o r t he fi rs t ti m e,” the Cour t wrot e, it e of aus th every cl was 2 9 to giv e c ons tr uct ion to d up ese ar ti cl es. ” le on “ cal th he Cour t’ s ana lysis o f t h e pos si ble app li cat ion of the T hir te ent h T end Am , Due Pro ces s, and Equal Pro te ct ion was re la ti vely bri ef , an d it has m ent 3 0 Sla m uch inf lue ot on sub seq uen t la w. rt ught er- Hous e is fa m ou s , exe ed n nce 3 1 for it s e visce ra ti on o f t he P ri vileges or I m m uni ti es Cla use . ins te ad, te he use , J ust ic e Mi ll er obs er ved, pro Cla ct s the pri vileges and imm uni ti es T 3 2 der al ci ti zenshi p fr om s t a t e int er fe re nce . Wh at ar e the se pri vileges and of fe 3 3 imm Not tho se a s s o c i at ed wit h st at e ci ti zenshi p. T hey ar e, ins te ad, uni es? ti er se own the ir exi st enc e to the [f ]e der al gov ch nm ent , it s [ n ] a t i ona l tho “whi 3 4 ct er , it s Cons ti tut ion , or it s la ws.” An ord ina ry re ade r m ight thi nk fr om [c ]ha ra s t cr ipt ion tha thi Bil l of Rights pro visio ns woul d be inc lud ed, si nce the y des . at 5 9. 25 Id. . See id. (ind icating pu rpo se of st at u t e w as f or pu blic health). 26 For a descriptio n of the cond ns in Ne w Orleans pri or t o t he enactm ent o f th itio at iss ue in Sla ug hter-Hou se , se e, f or e law exa m ple, J AC K B E AT T Y , A GE O F B E T R AY AL : T HE T R IUM PH O F M O N E Y IN A M E R IC A , 18 65 -19 00 , at 11 7-2 00 7). 0 (2 . Sla hter-Hou se , 8 3 U. S. (1 6 Wall.) at 6 0. 27 ug Id. 8. . 28 at 5 Id . at 6 7. 29 . See id. at 7 2, 80 -81 . 30 . . Just as on e m ay choo se f rom sev eral adverbs to describe the qu ality of the Cou rt’s error, 31 rf colo descriptio ns of the decision ’s im pact on the P rivilege s or Im m un ities Clause abou nd . Most ul appro w s sugge stive of bu tchery , w hich is ord priate, if ob vious. See, e.g. , Michael Kent Curtis, use Resurrecting the Privileges or Immuni ties Clau se an d Revising the Slaughter-Ho use Cases witho ut , Exhu Lochner : Ind ividu al Righ ts an d the Fou rteenth Amendment 38 B.C. L. R E V . 1, 1 (19 96 ) ming (“liqu idated”); Tim oth y Sand ef ur, Privileges, Immuni ties, an d Su bsta ntive Due Process , 5 N.Y.U. 11 J. & L IBE R T Y L. 5, 11 5 (2 01 0) (“m util ated” and “entombed”). 32 . Sla ug hter-Hou se , 8 3 U. S. (1 6 Wall.) at 7 4-7 6. 33 . Id . at 7 4. 34 . Id . at 7 9.

5 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 65 THE SLAUGHTER 3 5 e] exi st enc e to the . . . C ons ti tut ion .” I nde ed, it is pos si ble to re ad ir “ow[ the er ll opi nio n as no t f o re cl osi ng Bil l of Rights inc orp ora ti on thr ough ’s Mi 3 6 have u or i t i e s . But la te r cas es m re ad it to exc lud e the Bil l of I m vileges Pri n 7 3 it Mi ll er tho ught tho se pro visio ns inc lud ed, is odd tha t he did not and , Rights if to the m as exa m ple s. I nst ead , he off er ed the ri ght “ t o c o me to the sea t of tur n nm m . . . to tr ans act any bus ine ss he er ay h ave wit h i t” and “t he ri ght of gov ent 3 8 acc to it s sea por ts .” He went on to inc lud e ee ri ght “t o demand the car e the fr ess ct ion of the Fede ra l gov e r n me n t te . . . when on the high sea s . . . the and pro vilege of the wri t of habe as pri pus . . . [t ]he ri ght to use the navigabl e wat er s cor 3 9 Unit ed Sta te s.” Las t, in an e s p e c i a l l y o d d twi st , he add ed, “t he ri ghts of the 0 4 the thi rt een th and f if te ent h ar ti cl es of amendm ent .” A bro ade r ure by sec d adi Mi ll er war ned , woul d “r adi cal ng, cha nge[] the whol e the ory of the re ly la ti ons of the Sta te and Fede ra l gov er nm ent s to eac h oth er and o f b o t h the se re 4 1 le o t he p eop ent .” er s t gov nm m any peo ple have poi nte d out , Mi ll er ’s re aso nin g is somewhat le ss tha n As 4 2 is ory. Mo st obvious ly, cha nging the re la ti ons hip bet ween the sat at es, the st ct fa der peo gov er nm ent , and the fe ple was exa ct ly the pur pos e of t he al al nst ti on Am end m ent s. T he pol it ic Reco par adi gm of the fou ndi ng genera ti on ruc too k a dis ta nt cen tr al gov er nm ent as thr eat eni ng to the li ber ty of ind ividu al s and loo ked pro te ct ion to the st at es in the ir sovere ign cap aci ty. T h a t w as the for sso n the Revolut ion , when st at e m il it ia m en fa c e d down Redc oat s fr om le of ser So the fou nde rs ’ Cons ti tut as. li m it ed fe der al power and pre ved the overse ion 4 3 y capac it y of t he s ta te s, most n ota it h t he S eco nd Amendm ent . il ar m bly wit tha t pol it ic al the ory was pro ved fa ls e, or at le ast inc om ple te , by the Civil But r af it s Wa te rmath. I n the m ind s of the Reco nst ruc ti on Congres s, the nat ion al and is . The co u n t erarg um ent that the Bill of Ri ghts guarantees are actually pre-existing 35 Id. ral rights th at exist indep enden t o f th e Con stitut ion . natu . stice e.g. , Jonath an Lurie, Reflection s o n Ju 36 Sa muel F. Miller an d the Slaughter- See, & se : Stil l a Hou Su bject , 1 N.Y.U. J. L. Cases L IBE R T Y 35 5 (20 05 ); Kev in Christo ph er Meaty New som , Settin g Incorp orat ion ism Stra igh t: A Re i nt e r pr e t at i on of the Slaughter-Ho use Cases , 10 9 Y AL L. J. 64 3, 64 9 (2 00 0). E 2, . . , Wa shin gton v. G lucksberg, 52 1 U.S. 70 e.g 75 9 n.6 (19 97 ) (Sou ter, J., 37 See, rring). concu . Sla ug hter-Hou se , 83 U.S. 38 Wa ll.) at 79 (qu otin g Crandall v. Nev ada, 73 U.S. (6 Wa ll.) (16 35 4 (1 86 7)). , 4 . 39 Id. . Id. at 8 40 0. 41 . Id. at 7 8. 42 . See, e.g. , C HAR L E S L. B L AC K , J R ., A N E W B IR T H O F F R E E D O M : H U M AN R IGHT S , N AM E D AN D U N N AM E D 41 -85 (19 97 ). . as the original constit utio n pro tected indiv idu als aga inst states, it w 43 m ost concerned When ina pro them to aga inst oth er states. A verting discrim tect t i o n ag ainst ou t-of-staters is a central concern of A rticle IV of the Con stitut ion , ref lected prima rily in the P rivilege s or Im m un ities Clause their bu also the Ful l Faith and Credit Clause. P rotectio ns f or ind ividuals aga inst t own states w ere th very w , m ost n otab ly narro e Ex P ost F acto and Bill of A ttaind er Clauses.

6 66 I ANA LAW REV I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI 4 4 er not the thr eat to ind ividu al li ber ty, but ra the r it s pro te ct or. gov was nm ent l st at es wer e not def end ing the ir ci ti zens fr om a tyran nic al nat ion a d A n the 4 5 ent h e y wer e oppr ess ing the m , nm at le ast some of the m . T he or t ; gov er me ti Congres s envis ion ed what the F r a on rs la rgely did not , tha t ruc nst Reco al la ws a nd fede ra l right s coul d com e be twe en i ndi vidual s a nd t hei r s ta te s fe der 4 6 er te ct li ber t y. T he Reco nst ruc ti on Am end m ent s cou ld har dly be ord pro to in l, t e r ms of ena ct ing thi s m ode in sup er imposi ng t he new visio n ont o the er ear cl st it uti ona l s tr uct ure . old con was not los t on the dis sen te rs . ct “T he fi rs t el even amendm ent s to the fa his T tut ion ,” wrot e J ust ic e Swayne, “wer e int end ed to be che cks and li m it at ion s Cons ti 4 7 gov er nm ent upon h tha t ins tr um ent cal le d int o exi s t e n c e . ” T he the whic Reco ruc ti on Am end m ent s, by con tr ast , “ar e a new dep ar tur e, and m ar k an nst ant ch in the con st it uti ona l his tor y of the cou ntr y. T hey tr enc h dir ect ly import epo the power of the [s ]t at es, and dee ply af fe ct tho se bodi es. T hey ar e, in thi s upon 4 8 t oppo si te pol e fr om the fi rs , at el even.” “By the Cons ti tut ion , as it spe the re ct ood bef ore the war ,” he con ti nue d, “ample pro te st ion was giv en agains t ct oppr ion by t he Unio n, but li tt le was giv en aga i n s t wron g an d oppr ess ion by ess 4 9 o be T hat want was in te nde d t at sup pli ed b y this amendm ent .” [s es. the ]t m tha t per spe ct ive, Mi ll er ’s li st of Fro der al pri vileges and imm uni t i e s i s fe bizar . Mo st of the ri ghts he ident if re s are cer ta inl y not t hos e about whic h the ie Reco nst ruc ti on Congres s was con cer ned . As Ala n Gu r a s ai d in his ope nin g st at in Mc Donal d , “T he Civi l W a r w as not fou ght bec aus e [s ]t at es wer e ement ta cking ple on the high sea s or blo cking acc ess to the Bure au of Engraving at peo 5 0 s, T he ri ghts sec ure d by the T hir te h and Fif te ent h Am end m ent nti Pri ng.” and ent con ast , ar e ri ghts abo ut whic h Congres tr was con cer ned , but Mi ll er ’s by s lus ion of th em in hi s l is t a ct ual ly j ust m akes t hin gs wors e. inc he e ble m is tha t tho s T r i gh t s run agains t the st at es by the ir own for ce; pro y not nee d ano the r amendm ent to gather the m up and pro te ct the m . the Sta te s do not ri ens la ve peo ple or den y the can ght to vote on ra ci al grounds bec aus e of the s hir ent h and Fif te ent h Am end m ent te by the m sel ves, whet her the Pri vileges or T I m m uni ti es Cla use e x is ts or not . So inc lud ing the se pre - exi st ing fe der al ri ghts is m ply re dund a n t . A s J ust ic e Fie ld put it , if tha t is it s ef fe ct , the n the si te a h Am end m ent “was Four vai n a nd idl e ena ct m ent , whic h acc om pli she d ent it n h ing, and m ost unne ces sar il y exc t ed Congres s and the peo ple on i t s o 44 . See, e.g. , A KHIL R E E D A M AR , T HE B IL L O F R IGHT S : C R E AT ION AN D R E C O N ST R U C T ION 56 (19 98 ). . . , id. at 2 58 . 45 See, e.g . See Sla ug hter-Hou se , 83 U.S. (16 Wa ll.) at 12 8 (Swa y ne, J., 46 g) (“T he preju dices dissentin and ension as to the central governm ent w hich appreh w hen the Con stitut ion w as adop ted prevailed w ere disp elled by the light of experience. The pu blic m ind becam e satisf ied that there was less danger of ty ranny in th an o f anarchy and ty ranny in th e m em bers.”). e head th . Id . at 1 24 (Swa y ne, J., di ssenting). 47 48 . Id. at 1 25 . 49 Id . at 1 29 . . 50 . Tra -4. of Oral A rgum ent, supra no te 1, at 3 nscript

7 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 67 THE SLAUGHTER 1 5 sage.” pas Mo ss everyone agree s tha t the Mi ll er re adi ng m akes li tt le sen se, at or re le tr t f we ta ke the ri ghts he li st ed as i uly exe m pla ry of the pri vileges and s le a es of fe der al ci ti zenshi p. But how s houl imm he c la use have bee n re ad? uni ti d t int pre ta ti ons diver ge int o what we can er l the ant i- dis cr iminat ion and the e Her cal l ri ghts camps. E a c h ma kes sen se, te xtu al fun and his tor ic al ly, to a damenta ly er ext e n t t h a n Mi ll er ’s re adi ng. And eac h has a re pre sen ta ti ve a m ong the great ts te in Sla ught er- Hous e . T hos e dis sen ar e a con venien t way to develo p sen dis rs the views. . O T H E R O A D S N I T T A K E N I dis mina ti on i- cri A. Ant i- dis cr iminat ion re adi ng st ar T wit h the obs er vatio n tha t the ori ginal he ant ts ti tut ion al so ref er s to privil eges and im m uni ti Cons Art ic le I V , Sec ti on T wo, es. pro th at “[ t] he [ c] it izens of ea ch [ s] ta te sha ll be ent it le d to al l [ p]r ivil eges vides 5 2 ti es of [c ]i ti zens in the sever al Sta te s.” T his cl aus e was int end ed [i uni and ]mm te zens agains t dis cr iminat ion ci ti pro of one st at e who ventur ed int o ano the r. to ct a was igned to knit the sever al st at es int o t fe der al uni on by pro vidin g tha t an I des ividu al fr om Ma rylan d, for ins ta nce , who tr avele d to Vir ginia , would not b e ind m but a st ra nger to it s la ws dee woul d ins te ad re cei ve al l the ben ef it s acc ord ed ed 5 3 V ginia ns. to ir his w a s an exa m ple of the Fra m er s’ con cer n wit h dis cr iminat ion agains t T - a er s. Dis cr iminat ion among out st at e’ s c i t i zens was an obj ect of m uch of-stat af le cer n for the Fra m er s, but of cour se it ros e to pr om ine nce con te r t he Ci vil ss Wa How co uld an r. ent re spo nd? amendm One way m ight be to bui ld on the Art ic le I V Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es Cla use . T hat cl aus e cou l d b e p a r aph ra sed as sayin g tha t st at es m ay not abr idge the vileges or uni ti es of ci ti zens of oth er st at es, “pr ivil eges or imm uni ti es” pri imm m e ri ghts unde r loc al st at e la w. ean Wh at was nee ded now was sayin g tha t her ing at es cou ld not do thi s to the ir own ci ti zens ei the r— tha t st at es cou ld not abr idge st pri vileges or imm uni ti es of ci ti zens of oth er st at es, or of the ir own ci ti zens. the se two cat egori es of ci ti zens tog e the r, and Put you get al l st at e the er ti “ci ti zens of ci Unit ed S t a te s.” Wh zens— e the Art ic le I V cl aus e ai m s to the m ake one n a t i o n o ut of the sever al st at es, we cou ld say the Four te ent h 51 . ug hter-Hou se , 83 U.S. (16 Wa ll.) at 96 (Field, J., dissentin g). A s he w en t o n to Sla “[w]it designated privileges and im m un ities thu s explain, or im plied no [ s] tate co u ld eve r have h pro interfere its law s, and no new constit utio nal by vision w as requi red to inh ibit such interfere nce. d The supr em acy of the Con stitut ion and the law s of the United States alw ay s cont rolled any [ s] tate legislation o f at character.” Id. th . art. . C 52 N ST U.S. IV , § 2, cl. 1 . O 53 . Or at least the im po rtant on es. In Corfield v. Coryell , 6 F. Cas. 54 6 (C.C.E. D. P a. 18 23 ) Im (No. 30 ), the canon ical A rticle IV P rivilege s and 32 m un ities case , Justice Wa shin gton no ted that the clause guaranteed fund am ental rights.

8 68 I ANA LAW REV I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI end Am cl aus e ai m s to m ake us one peo ple wit hin the sever al st at es. Or, as m ent e Fi d pu t i t, ic J ust el the [Ar ti cl e I V ] cl aus e . . . did for the pro te ct ion of the ci ti zens of Wh at te agains t hos ti le and Sta dis cr iminat ing le gisla ti on of oth er [s ]t at es, one for e ] our te ent h [A] m end m ent doe s [ the pro te ct ion of every ci ti zen h t F Unit ed Sta te s agains t hos ti le and dis cr iminat ing le gisla ti on agains t of the fa in oth er s, whet her the y re si de i n the same or in dif fe re nt him vor of of es. I f unde r the f our th ar ti cl e at the Cons ti tut ion equ al it y of ]t [s i vil eges and imm uni ti es is sec ure d bet ween ci ti zens of dif fe re n t p r end at unde r th e [F] our te ent h [A] m es, m ent the same equ al it y is ]t [s 5 4 twe en c it izens sec th e Uni te d St at es. ure d be of A xtu al ly and his tor ic al ly pla usi ble re adi ng of the Four te ent h Am end m ent te 5 5 l and one end ors ed by some sch ola rs , is thu s tha t it ann ounc es th a t a se, c u iminat ti among st at e ci cr zens is now to be viewed as skept ic al ly as dis ion r iminat again st ci ti zens of ot her st at es was unde cr the Art ic le I V cl aus e. dis ion ivil eges or I m m uni ti es” den ote s ri ghts cr eat ed by st at e la w, j ust as in Art ic le “Pr V , and “ci ti zens of t h e Unit ed Sta te s” set s out the cl ass of peo ple pro te ct ed I t d cr iminat ory abr idgement. agains is he Supr eme Cour t, of cou rs e, has not ado pte d thi s re adi ng. And fr om one T at spe ive, tha t is a los s. per A pro hib it ion on dis cr iminat ion agains t a st ct e’ s own ci zens i s c er ta inl y som et hin g that th ti con st ruc ti on Co ngress want ed, and it e Re i s n o r m at ively app eal ing as wel l. But fr om ano the r per spe ct ive, not hin g o f si gnifi ce has bee n los t. We do, af te r al l, have lot s of cas es hol din g tha t can ta in of dis cr iminat ion among st at e ci ti zens ar e unc ons ti tut ion al : tha t is cer kinds l Pr uri ct ion j Equa spr ude nce . our ote vindi ld’ dis sen t has , in one Fie sen se, bee n s cat ed; the Cour t is now, unde r So Equa l Pro te ct ion Cla use , doi ng what he urged it to do unde r the Pri the or vileges Imm n it ie s Cla use . I f Fie ld’ s dis sen t had pre vaile d in Sla ught er- Hous e , w e u d fe re ach ed tho se re sul ts unde r a dif woul re nt cl aus e, but the y m ight be very have el uch m same. T he dif fe re nce woul d li e sewh er e— it woul d be in the dif fe re nt the t a c k tha t Equa l Pro te ct ion j uri spr ude nce m ight have ta ken. I dis cus s t h a t pos si it y in Par t II I ; f ir st , th er e i s a not her di sse nt to con si der . bil damen tal hts B. Fun Rig way pre ing sec ti on sugg est ed tha t he ced of des cr ibi ng the con cer ns of T one Reco nst ruc ti on C o n gr e s s the a s to say tha t the y ha d re al ized tha t the re was a w dan of st at es dis cr iminat ing not j ust again ger ci ti zens of ot her st at es, but al so st agains t som e of thei r own citi zens. T hat des cr ipt ion le ads nat ura ll y to the anti - ti dis ion u n d e r s t a n din g of Pri vileges or I m m uni iminat es. But the re is al so cr ano r wa y of de scr the ng the con cer n. ibi 54 . Sla ug hter-Hou se , 8 3 U. S. (1 6 Wall.) at 1 00 -01 (Field , J., dissentin g). , 55 See, e.g. , John Harrison, Reconstru cting the Privileges or Immuni ties Clau se . 10 1 Y AL E 14 L.J. 13 85 , 51 -73 (19 92 ).

9 2011 ] SES 69 THE SLAUGHTER -HOUSE CA Fra T s, we cou ld say, wer e wor ri ed a bout opp re ssi on b y t he nat ion al m he er 5 6 agains , the re for e, the y gav e ind ividu al s ri ghts t it . Aft er t h e nm and r ent go ve r, the Reco nst ruc ti on Congres s re al ized tha t oppr ess ion by th Civil st at es was Wa e a danger. a const it uti ona l am end m ent re sol ve suc h con cer ns? al so How could tha d be to ta ke the same ri ghts woul t pro te ct ed ind ividu al s obvious An way the fe der al agains er nm ent an d a p p l y t hem t o the st at es as wel l. “No st at e t gov 5 7 . . abr idge” doe s a pre tt y good j ob of exp la ini ng tha t the se ri ghts can be ll . sha te the agains t st at es. But how to des cr ibe the ri ghts? T hey ar e er ri ghts tha t ass d 5 8 pri ion giv es, tha t bel ong to every Am er ic an —t hey ar e “t he ti vileges Cons tut the 5 9 es of ci ti zens of th e Uni uni d St at es. ” imm ti or te n his d i s s e n t , J ust ic e Bra dle y sugg est ed thi s int er pre ta ti on. “I n m y I udgm j he wrot e, “i t was the int ent ion of the peo ple of thi s cou ntr y in ent ,” at ng Four te e nth ] amendm ent to pro vide [n] he ion al sec uri ty agains t pti ado [t 0 6 the [s ]t at es of the fun damenta l ri ghts of the ci ti zen.” Enumerat ing viola ti on by of con ti on of Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es, he l i s t e d s o m e Bil l Rights his cep visio nd c onc lud ed, “[t ]he se, and st il l o ns a rs ar e s pec if ie d i n t he o ri ginal pro the o n s t i t uti on, or in the ear ly amendm ent s of it , as among the pri vileges a n d C uni of ci ti zens of the Unit ed Sta te s, or, what is st il l st ron ger for the es for ce ti imm 6 1 ent , th e r ights of al l p er son s, wh ar her ci ti zens or not .” the gum of et 6 2 unda m ent al ri ghts” re adi ng of the Pri vileges or Im m uni ti es Cla use T his “f 6 3 . one m ost comm onl y hel d by sch ola rs the Like the ant i- dis cr iminat ion is 6 4 ng, it m akes good te xtu al and his tor ic al sen se. Again, the Supr eme Cour t re adi has ado pte d it , a n d again, tha t is a los s fr om one per spe ct ive. T hat st at es not uld be abl e to viola te the fun damenta l ri ghts of the ir ci ti zens— bot h tho se sho not ind It w orth no ting, ho w eve r, that grants of is ividual rights w ere pro babl y consid ered the 56 . f icant pro tection aga inst f ederal ty ranny b y th e Fram ers, as shown by th e init ial f ailure least signi inclu o a Bill of Rights. The grant of lim it ed p to wer s t o t h e f ederal governm ent w as likely de correlative ered a ore valuable pro tection , as w as the m preserva tion of state auth ority. See, consid , T HE F E D E R AL IST N o. 84 , at 5 15 (A e.g. nd er Ham ilto n) (Clinto n Rossiter ed., 19 61 ) (a rguing lexa that t nstitu tion itself is “to every useful pu rpo se, a Bill o f Rights”) (em ph asis om itted). he Co . am 57 C O N ST U.S. end. X IV , § 1. . 58 . Citizenship is no t nece ssary f or som e rights, of course. For instance, Fifth A m endme nt Due P rocess pro S. C O N ST . am end. V . Bu t citizenshi p i s suff icient. tects “persons.” U. 1; . . C O N ST . am end. X IV , § S see a lso supra no te 58 and acc om panying text. Rather 59 U. setting ou t the class of pro tected peop le, “of citizens of than United States” iden tifies the rights the as based in deral, rath er than state, law . fe g). . use Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wa ll.) 3 6, 12 2 (1 87 2) (Brad 60 , J., dissentin Slaughter-Ho ley 61 Id. at 1 18 -19 . . . See id. at 1 11 -24 . 62 63 . See general ly, e .g. , A M AR , supra no te 44 (eva luatin g the cre ation a nd re constru ction of the Bill Rights and the im pact of the Fou rteenth A m endme nt); Michael Ke nt Curtis, Historical of The gu Lin ots, an d Life After Death: istics, Privileges or Immuni ties of Citizens of the United Inkbl Sta tes , 7 8 N. C. L. Rev. 107 1 (2 00 0) (d escribing th e f un dam ental rights appro ach). f 64 I sugge sted in supra P art II.A that there is a t ex t u al basis . or the anti-d iscrim inatio n orwa reading, b the fund am ental rights reading m ay be more straightf ut rd. See sup ra no te 63 .

10 70 I ANA LAW REV I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI m enu in the C o n s ti tut ion and , per hap s, some oth er s— is a pri nci ple tha t er at ed tha R e c o nst ruc ti on and ing t we sho uld value now. But valued dur Congres s t i s a l s o a p ri nci ple tha t is wel l est abl is again, in our cas e la w. Pro te ct ing i hed l gh t s f r o m st at e abr idgm ent is ri what our sub st ant ive due pro ces s damenta fun 5 6 nce doe s. j uri spr ude li ust ic e Fi el d’s dis sen t the n, J ust ic e Br adl ey’s d is sen t h as won ou t J ke J ust e dif a nt name. Sla ught er- Hous e m ay hav fe e mp t i ed the Pri vileges or r unde re m uni ti es Cla use , but it s con te nts ar e s t i l l w i t h us. T he two visio ns of I m ar or m m uni ti es tha t the dis sen te rs off er ed I e w h a t w e n o w know as vileges Pri 6 6 te ct ion and sub st ant ive due pro ces s. Equa li ng Sla ught er- Hous e in l Pro Overru ord to sho ve thos e do ct ri nes bac k into th e Pr ivil eges or I m m uni ti es Cla use at er s po int d be a l ar gely poin tl ess exe rc is e. thi woul t doe s not m ean tha t Mi ll er ’s victo ry did t not m at te r. I t di d . B y u tha B ng Equa l Pro te ct ion and Due for ces s to sho uld er a bur den tha t Pri vileges or ci Pro m uni ti es le t sl ip, Sla ught er- Hous e m vented t h e m f rom per for m ing oth er I pre ct ion s. T he que st ion wort h askin g fun not how thi ngs m ight cha nge now if we is overr d Sla ught er- Ho u se ; it is how thi ngs m ight have bee n dif fe re nt if the ule s had e n t s had won in 1872 , if Equa l Pro te ct ion and Due Pro ces s di not bee n s es. le on to pla y rol es cal ore pro per ly ass igned to Pri vileges or I m m uni ti d T hat m is e c ount er fa ct ual th at th is Art ic le se eks to exp lor e. th I I I . C O U N T E R F A C T U A L S A. Di scl r aime st , wor d a b o u t t h e kind of cou nte rf act ual ana lysis I wil l employ. We Fir a es of the develo p m ent of doc tr ine ak as tho ugh the la w unf old ed m spe someti y, working it sel f pu re , or fu ll y re al iz aut g it s co nc ept ual comm it m ent s. onomousl in his acc ount of doc tr ina l cha nge is li the te le olo gical view of bio logic al T ke ion as a s te ady pro gress to evolut ds h igher or bet te r f orms of li fe . And, li ke war the te le olo gical view of evolut ion , it is wron g. Evolut ion is not dri ven by values er wil to the worl d. Wh at dir ect ion it ta kes, what for m s of li fe ext l re pro duc e ior pet uat e the m sel ves, and end s not on the ir int ri nsi c m er it s but per on how the ir dep cha ct er is ti cs fi t t he c ir ra ces wit h whi ch t hey m ust con te nd. cumstan Law, li kewise , doe s not grow in a vacuu m towa rds some ide al for m ; it is re spo ve to soc ia l con te xt. T he pat h of our equ al pro te ct ion j uri spr ude nce , for nsi ta ci , owes m uch le ss to the spe ins fi c bel ie fs of the Reco nst ruc ti on Congres s nce equ or tr ue phi los ophi cal m ean ing o f al it y tha n to the cha nging soc ia l the 7 6 ta ndi of equ al it y’s demands. For exa m ple , Brown was not genera te d rs unde ng . 02 Wa shin gton v. G lucksberg, 52 1 U. S. 7 65 , 7 19 -21 (19 97 ). See (stating . Rosen, supra 66 no te 20 , at 12 33 See that “bot h equal pro tection and substan tive du e pro cess jurisp rud ence in the tw entieth century seem to have evolve d sim i l ar ly (altho ugh no t h iden ) to the w ay P rivilege s or Im m un ities jurisp rud ence mig h t tically ave developed if the dissenters’ view Sla ug hter-Hou se had prevailed”). s in 67 4). Brown v. Bd. of Edu c., 3 47 U.S. 48 3 (1 95 .

11 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 71 THE SLAUGHTER the w al one , but by the J ust ic es of the Wa rr en Cour t, the la w ye r s o f the by la the m embers of the ci vil ri ghts m ovem ent . V ague and value-lade n NAACP, and uti as l pro visio ns li ke equ al pro te ct ion ser ve m ost oft en it a si te for co nst ona 6 8 and ic g onist s to deb at e the ir competi ng visio ns, la w goes nowhe re al an ide olog ta peo ple to ta ke it . hout wit sai d, Supr eme Cour t dec is ion s do have an obvious ef fe ct on the T hat ent y of doc tr ine , even if the pm can not be exp la ine d ent ir el y in te rms of develo s doc . T hey m ake cer ta in ar gum ent ine and out comes mo r e or le ss or tr pri ble . T hey m ay for ecl ose cer ta in the ori es tha t onc e loo ked per sua si ve, pla usi and y ay ope n the door to cl ai m s that pre viousl y see m ed outr ageous . A the ory the m 6 9 e tom wal t was “off yeste rda y m ay be o n t he t abl the orr ow. Wh at I see k - - tha l” ide nti fy in the to fol lowi ng sec ti ons , the n, ar e some ar gum ent s tha t end ed up “of the - wal l,” as thi ngs worked out in the re al worl d, but m ight have bee n on the f- ble if Sla ught er- Hous e had come out di ff er ent ly. ta Prot ion Coul d Hav e Be en al ect B. What Equ we st ar t wit h the te xt o f t h e E qua l Pro te ct ion Cla use I whic h guaran te es f , 7 0 rot ect ion of the la ws,” the re qua is somethi ng a li tt le sur pri si ng about he e l p “t cur re nt j uri spr ude nce . Equa l pro te ct ion doc tr ine , in the m ai n, is abo ut our er cl ent gov ass if ic at ion s; it is abo ut the con te nt of st at e la ws, and in par ti cul ar nm 7 1 her y have dra wn li nes bas ed on impermissi ble cha ra ct er is ti cs. T his whet is the the pri ng bec aus e the m ost nat ura l sur adi ng of “eq ual pro te c t i o n of si la ws” re 7 2 kes it to be abo ut app li cat ion or bab orc ement, r at her th an c ont ent . pro ly ta enf On thi s re adi ng, the par adi gm viola ti on of equ al pro te ct ion —t he sor t of thi ng the Reco nst ti on Congres s bel ie ved was at the hea rt of what the Equa l Pro te ct ion ruc use hib it ed— woul d not be ra ce-segregated sch ool s or ra il roa d car s. I t Cla pro th w to ai lur e t o en for ce st at e t ort or cr iminal la d be pr ote ct fr eed sl aves woul e f il - ri om s and the K la n, or the fa night ure to enf orc e comm on car ri er la ws fr der t ra ci al dis cr iminat ion by i nnkeepe rs agains re st aur at eur s. One cou ld thi nk and of the thr ee dif fe re nt cl aus es of the Four te ent h Am end m ent as add re ssi ng thr ee fe ws nt pro ble m s. Fir st , the con te nt of st at e la dif is unj ust and dis cr iminat ory. re he vileges or I m m uni ti es Cla use re spo nds Pri t o tha t pro ble m by for bid din g T 68 . See Jack M. Balkin, Framework Origin alism an d the Living Con stitut ion , 10 3 N W . U. L. R E . 5 49 , 5 54 -66 (20 09 ). V “off . abou t this as argum ents going f rom talks -the-wa ll” to “on-t he-w all.” See id. 69 Balkin 57 7. I thin k that “on the table” im pro ves the im age at bu t I can’t take credit f or it; the change w as , sugge y Richard P rim us in con vers ation . sted b . am . C O N ST 70 end. X IV , § 1. U.S. 71 . See, e.g. , Kerm it Roo sev elt, Ju st i ce Scal ia’s Con stitut ion —an d Ours , 8 J.L. & S O C . C HAN 27 , 3 2 (2 00 5). GE ence . no ther criticism of current law is 72 the jurisp rud A shou ld b e co n ce r n ed w ith that op pression rather than classif ication , i.e., that it shou ld f ollo w an anti-su bo rdin ation rather than an rdin anti-classif o n t ack . I w ill discuss belo w ho w anti-su bo icati ation m ight acquire grea ter istory pro inen ce in my cou nterfa ctual h m . See infra P art III.C.

12 72 I ANA LAW REV I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI cr iminat and /or pro te ct ing fun damenta l ri ghts. Sec ond, st at e off ic ia ls act dis ion de out la w, viola ti ng the ri ghts of m ino ri ti es wit hout le gal war ra nt. T he Due the si d, Cla re spo nds to tha t pro ble m by s qui ri ng the m to obs er ve it . T hir use Pro ces re e offi al s fai l to enfo rc e thei r fac ia ll y neu tr al ci la ws in fa vor of fr eed sl aves. at st Equa l Pro te ct ion Cla use re spo nds t o t h at T ble m by r equ ir ing the m to do he pro so. ide a t h a t st at es m ay n ot sel ect ively wit hhol d the ben ef it s of the ir la ws T he o Pro cou rs e, not for ei gn to our Equa l , te ct ion cas es. I n DeSha ney v. is f 7 3 y Depar tme nt of Soc ial Ser vi ces , the inn Cour t s t a t ed j ust tha t eba Count W go r inc ipl e, tho ugh in a foo tno te and wit h the qua li fi cat ion tha t pro te ct ion cou l p d 7 4 den ie d “t o c e r t a i n dis fa vored m ino ri ti es. ” But the cas es tha t for m the not be e of unde rs ta ndi ng of Equa l Pro te ct ion ar e abo ut la ws tha t grant ri ghts to cor our 7 7 5 6 y the m to ano the r— cas es ke Brown and Lovi ng , or m ore group and den one li 7 7 7 8 7 9 Grut te r , and tl nts In vol ved . cen y Grat z , re Pare at woul d have hap pen ed to Equa l Pro te ct ion if J ust ic e Fie ld’ s dis sen t had Wh vaile ion and dis cr iminat pre cas es li ke Brown and Lovi ng wer e dec ide d ins te ad d Of r Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es Cla use ? cou rs e we can onl y spe cul at e. the unde 0 8 re oughts . e a her But some th l Pro te ct ion woul d be un d e r st ood to be foc use d on the fa il ure of st Equa e at off ia ls to enf orc e st at e la w to the ic ef it of cer ta in ind ividu al s or groups . Such ben sel ect ive enf orc ement woul d be the cor e Equa l Prot ect ion viola ti on, ra the r tha n the m ar ginal one it is tod ay. We woul d under st and Equa l Prot ect ion somewhat is a ri ght, as guaran te ei ng some af fi rmati ve ass ive ta nce and pro te c t i o n it pos as the st at e. Wi th thi s pos it ive ri ght wel l est abl is hed , we woul d have a le sse r fr om nst comm m ent to the ide a tha t t h e C o it it uti on is genera ll y “a cha rt er of l overal 8 1 t i ve l ibe rt ie s.” And we woul d have a great er n re cep ti vity to the ide a th a t e ga 73 48 9 U. S. 1 89 (19 89 ). . . Id. 97 n. 3. 74 at 1 3 (1 Brown v. Bd. 47 U.S. 48 c., 3 95 4). . of Edu 75 Loving v . V irginia, 3 88 U.S. 76 (19 67 ). . 1 . ratz v. Bollin ger, 539 U.S. G 4 (2 00 3). 77 24 . G rutter v. Bo llin ger, 539 U.S. 30 6 (2 78 3). 00 79 P arents Involved i n Cmty . Sch . v. Seattle S ch. Dist. No. 1, 55 1 U. S. 7 01 (20 07 ). . f . tw o rece 80 articles, Christo ph er G reen has argued In or t h e fai l u r e to pro tect nt un derstand ing of equal pro tection an d developed m any of the sam e po ints addressed here. See Christo ph R. G reen, The Origin al Sense of the ( Equ al) Prote ct i o n C l a use: Pre-Ena ctment er (20 , G E O . M AS O N U. C.R. L.J. 1 08 ) [ herein aft er Gr ee n, Pre-Ena ctment History ] ; History 19 ph er R. G reen, The Origin al Sense of the ( Equ Christo Protectio n Clau se: Su bsequ ent al) Interpreta an d App licatio n , 19 G E O . M AS O N tion U . C.R. L.J. 21 9, 22 4-5 5, 29 3-3 09 (20 09 ) [ hereinafte r G reen, Su bsequ ent Interpretatio n an d App licatio n ] . He also c on siders s om e po ints I sup do t, such as t he argum ent that a f ailure to pro tect un derstand ing would no po rt constit utio nal challenges to th enalty . Id. e death p 23 , 3 07 . at 2 81 . B o wer s v. DeVito , 68 6 F.2 d 61 6, 61 8 (7th Cir. 19 82 ). No jud ge in m y coun terf actual the w w ou ld say w hat P osner w ent o n t o sa y: t h at the Con stitut ion “tells orld state to let peop le ent alon it do es no t requi re the f ederal governm e; or the state to pro vide serv ices, eve n so elem entary

13 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 73 THE SLAUGHTER il ure pr ote ct is con st it uti ona ll y probl ematic . fa to d How gen e r a l t r end s be re fl ect ed in spe ci fi c doc tr ine ? For the woul se y, m wil l now use “f ai lur e t o pro te ct ” to it ean the cou nte rf act ual Equa l cl ar I the ct and “an ti - cl ass if ic at ion ” to m ean act ual one . My m ai n sugg est ion te Pro ion tha t sep ar at ing cas es invol ving f ai lur e to pro te ct fr om cas es is ving invol ass ic at ion s genera ll y mi gh t al low for m ore rob ust j udi ci al sup er visio n of cl if ure xt, to p r o t e c t . I n the ant i- cl ass if ic at ion con te il a st ron g te xtu al is t fa ement the orc l Pro te ct ion Cla use is nei the r pos si ble nor of des ir abl e. As enf Equa 8 2 enn edy obs er ved in Romer ic van s , ust e K J v. E he Four te ent h Am end m ent ' s pro m is e tha t no per son sha ll be den T d the ie equ pro te ct ion of the la ws m ust coe xis t wit h the pra ct ic al nec ess it y tha t al ost gisla ti on cl ass if ie s f o r o n e pur pos e or ano the r, wit h re sul ti ng m le age vario us groups or per son s . . . . advant We have at te m pte d to dis to eal ci the con pri nci ple w i t h t h e r le it y by st at ing tha t, if a la w nei the r re den s a fu nda m ent al ri ght nor target s a sus pec t cla ss, we will upho ld bur gisla ti ve cl ass if ic at ion the so lon g as it bea rs a ra ti ona l re la ti on to some le 8 3 giti at e e nd. le m ic h is to sa y, exc ept ion s m ust be m ade to the ant i- cl ass if ic at ion is t Wh and S o me t i m es dis cr iminat ion comm (by whic h I m ean m er el y dif fe re nti al . We eat n t ) is m ora ll y re qui re d: tr sho uld tr eat peo ple who have comm it te d me cr imes dif fe re ntl y fr om tho se who have not . Sometimes it is obvious ly j ust if ie d: We uld den y dr iver’ s li cen ses to the bli nd. And s o me t i me s i t is in keepin g sho is h ou m er it and des er t: T her e of no pro ble m wit h giv ing admiss ion s dea r i wit re nce s to app li can ts wit h higher grades or te st sco re s. Rat ion al bas is re view pre fe the enc e of a sus pec t cl ass if ic at ion , and abs re la te d rul e tha t dis par at e the in 8 4 f meri ts onl y rat ion al bas is re view, li m it j udi ci al in te impact er enc e. by it sel rf But se con cer ns have m uch le ss pur cha se in the fa il ure to pro te ct con te xt. the h demands ve a har d ti m e thi nking of ci rc um st anc es in whic h m ora li ty I th a t a 8 5 peo be deni ed the ben ef it some w enf orc ement. And whil e the ide a of of la ple Id. serv a m aintain ing law and ord er . ” ice For an early argum ent that the negative rights as concepti on of the Con stitut ion can be linked t o S l au gh ter-House , see Michael J. G erhardt, The Ripp le Effects of Slaughter-Ho use : A Critiqu e of a Negati ve Ri gh ts View of the Co nstitu tion , 4 3 AN D L. R E V . 4 09 (19 90 ). V . 51 S. 6 . 20 (19 96 ). 82 7 U. . at 6 31 (in ternal citatio ns o m itted). 83 Id. . There are diff erent explanation s f or the Cou rt’s use of ration al basis revie w in disp arate 84 anti- pact s. Th e mai n o n e, discussed later in this A rticle, is that the tou chston e f or an case im classif claim is inten tion al discrim inatio n, w hich ication is lack ing in disp arate imp ac t ca ses. A no ther is that grou ps d iff er in various p hy sical or so cioecono m ic characteristics , so that n eutral A and s w ill inevitably af f ect the sex es (or, less com m on ly , the race s) diff erently . law gain, sensible this t an argum ent th at can be ma de as easily w ith respect is no f ailures to pro tect: it is no t the to case th at group s inh erently di f f er w ith respect to t heir ent itlem ent to pro tection . a 85 pin g peop le of lega l pro tection used to be Strip f orm of pu nish m ent and w as a relative ly . com ’s on f eature of bill s of attaind er. See A khil Reed A m ar, Atta ind er an d Amendment 2: Rom er m

14 74 I I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI ANA LAW REV it m des er t per vasively sup por ts and le giti mi ze s dis cr iminat ion in the er and ion rc e reso urc es, it ope ra te s m ore of sca weakly wit h regard to fa il ure to at al loc . Law enf orc ement r eso urc es ar e s car ce, of cou rs e, a pro cou ld cr eat e te ct nd we log m er it by sa yi n g t h a t the y sho to be al loc at ed to the m ost ser iou s ana an uld es. But a del ibe ra te re fus al or gross ly negli gent fa il ure to enf orc e the off la w ens pro ct or compensa te an inj ure d ind ividu al pro bab ly st ri kes m ost p e o p l e as to te on tha cr eat ion of a m er it - bas ed admissi the syste m for a publ ic uni ve rs ity. e n wors tha t m ean s is tha t we cou ld have a m ore agg re ssi ve Wh udi ci al st anc e wit h at j 8 6 to fa il ure to pro te ct cas es tha n ant i- cl ass if ct at i o n o n e s . T hat woul d spe re ic ake some cas es eas ie r. Wh en cl ass if ic at ion acc ord ing to a cer ta in cha ra ct er is ti c m cei re y ra ti ona l bas is re view, it is har d to ar gue tha t fa il ure to pro te ct bas ed ves onl t not ra ct er is ti c is unc ons ti tut ion al , si nce we thi nk of cl ass if ic at ion and tha on cha ure te to pro te ct as the cor e Equa l Pro il ct ion con cer n. I n Romer v. Evan s , for fa con ta the Cour t con si der ed a Colo ra do st at e , st it u t i o n a l amendm ent tha t ins nce hdr ew fr om gay s, le sbi ans , and bis exu al s the p r o t e c ti on of loc al ant i- wit 8 7 ic la ws. T his was, wrot e J ust ion e K enn edy, “de nia l of equ al cr iminat dis 8 8 ion of the la ws in the m ost li te ra l s e n s e . ” B ut unde r set tl ed la w at the pro te ct m dis cr iminat ion o n the bas is of sex ual e, ori ent at ion re cei ved onl y ra ti ona l ti 8 9 re view. And giv en the pur por te d valid it y of Bower s v. Hard wic k , whic h bas is 9 0 uphe iminal ban on same- sex sex ual act ivit y, st ri king down the Colo ra do ld cr a w re re d some fa ncy foo twor k. As J ust ic e Sca li a ar gued, if the con duc t tha t la qui s a it ass can be cr iminal ized, can we re al ly say ine is not ra ti ona l to permit def cl 9 1 bab r cr iminat ion agains t tha t cl ass ? Pro va ly not , whic h is why s e x u a l i te p dis ent at ion dis cr im in at io n is now wide ly ori rs too d to be gov er ned by somethi ng unde higher an r at ion al bas is re view, even tho ugh the Cour t h as not exp li ci tl y said th 2 9 so. if we sep ar at e ant i- cl ass if ic at ion fr om fa il ure to pro te ct , r a t i ona l But is bas re for cl ass if ic at ion s nee d not imp l y view q u a ll y de fe re nti al re view for fa il ure e to pro te ct . A cl ass if ic at ion m ay be exp la ine d by m any thi ngs; fai lur e to prot ect is ore li kely, as K enn edy wrot e in Romer , “i nex pli cab le by anythi ng but m tness t 95 M IC H . L. R E V . 20 3, 21 2 (19 96 ) (describin g bill s of “out law ry ”). B u Righ , of course, , ers ew ere on e of the f attaind thin gs the original Con stitut ion intervened betwe en states and their w bar. own citizens to . A s the Cou rt no ted in Washin gto n v. 86 , 42 6 U.S. 22 9 (19 76 ), rejecting the invitatio n Davis to appl y Title V II standard s to equal pro tection disp arate im pact claim s m ore genera lly , agg ressiv e jud icial review ore to lerable w hen its scop e is narro w er. See id. at 2 47 -48 . is m . Romer 17 U.S. at 6 23 -24 . , 5 87 Id. at 6 33 . . 88 . See id. at 6 36 (Scalia, J., dissentin g) (ack no w ledging Bowers v. Hard 89 ). wick 90 47 8 U. S. 1 86 , 1 96 (19 86 ), overruled b . La w rence v. T exa s, 53 9 U. S. 5 58 (20 03 ). y 91 . Romer , 5 17 U.S. at 6 41 (Scalia, J., dissentin g). in 92 on the criteria the Cou rt has set ou t Based case s such as Fron tiero v. Richa rdson , 41 1 . U.S. 67 7, 68 6 (19 73 ), the argum ent f or heightened scrutin y seem s f airly stron g, bu t that is anot her issue.

15 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 75 THE SLAUGHTER 9 3 m I f fa il ure to pro te ct and ant i- cl ass if ic at ion wer e sepa ra te d, we cou ld us.” ani ore have ng sc r u t iny in fa il ure to pro te ct cas es wit hout ri sking m demandi ic udi in te rvent ion in cl ass if al at ion ca ses . ive j ci exc ess s l i gh t l y m ore demandi ng r eview, some cas es m ight al so come Under a out re y. I t is har d to see , for ins ta nce , what ntl ust if ic at ion the st at e cou ld giv e fe dif j it s fa il ure to pro t e c t J osh ua DeSha ney tha t for d st and up to m ore tha n woul 9 4 bas is scr uti ny. At le ast , tha t is so if dif fe re n t i a l f a i l u r e to pro te ct is ti l ra ona 9 5 n nee ded to m ake h a cl ai m . Under our cur re nt ant i- cl ass if ic at io t i s t a is w out roa somethi ng m ore is nee ded —di scr iminat ch, int ent. Wit ho ut in te nt ional app ory cr iminat ion dis er e c an b e no ant i- cl ass if ic at ion cl ai m . , th T m akes some sen se as fa r as ant i- cl ass if ic at ion is con c e r n e d . Under hat re nt w, and as see n m ost cl ear ly in some of J ust ic e K enn edy’s opi nio ns, cur la 9 6 at ion by it sel f viola te s the ass l Pro te ct ion Cla use . Governmenta l ic if cl Equa ti ndi vidual s i nto ra ci al ca te gorie s— ng of i gardl ess of whet her th is sor ti ng sor re the bas is for oppr ess ion , or even for dif fe re nti al tr eat m ent of the cat egori es— is is 9 7 sel it har m the cl aus e see ks to avert . Unin te nti ona l dis cr iminat ion doe s not the f . , 5 17 U.S. at 6 32 . 93 Romer . See Deshaney v. Winnebago Cnty . Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 48 9 U.S. 18 9 (19 89 ) (involvin g 94 f here child ’s m oth er bro ught claim aga case so ci al wo r kers f or f ailure to rem ove child w rom inst abusive ather’s c usto dy ). In f act, the Cou rt did f t use ration al basis s crutin y . It sim ply dec ided no that the cond uct allege d f ell ou tside the scope of the right asse rted. “[N] oth ing in the languag e of the Due rocess Clause itself ,” the Cou rt w rote, “requires the [ s] tate to pro tect the life , liberty, and P perty of citizens aga inst invasion by priva te actors.” Id. at 195 . It is no t e ntirely clear w hy pro its DeShaney ugh law y ers did no t pu rsue a ration al basis equal pro tection claim , tho a perhap s Joshu ’s cou al discrim no t allege intenti on ey inatio n. the answer is that th ld that One ight also argue, as Christo ph . G reen do es, m just as the P rivilege s or Im m un ities 95 er m ight have bo th anti-d iscrim inatio n and f un dam ental right s elem ents, Equ al P rotectio n Clause ld pro un derstoo d bo th to shou hib it diff erential f ailure to pro tect and to requi re som e m inima l be supra of . See G reen, Pre-Ena ctment History , tection no te 80 , at 3 (stating that “the baseline pro rem ent of equal pro tection is a requi rem ent that the governm en t su p ply ‘pro requi of the tection law do so eq ually ”). s,’ and . Sch . , Parent s Involved in Cm ty .g. . v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 70 1, 78 2 96 See, e 07 ) (Kennedy, J., concu (20 (sugge sting that w hat w as off ensive abou t the schoo l assig nm ents rring) w as t hat they used “off icial labels pro claim ing th e race of all person s”). The h arm here appears to be an ind ividual’s self -defin i tion , w hich interestin gly aligns Kennedy’s equal pro tection to See, rud ith his substan tive du e pro cess op inio ns. w e.g. , P lann ed P arentho od of Se. P a. jurisp ence Casey , 50 5 U.S. 83 3, 85 1 (19 92 ) (“A t v. heart of liberty is the right to define on e’s own concept the of nce, of mea n ing, of the un iverse , and of the m existe stery of hu m an life . Belief s abou t these y m atters co uld no t define t h e attribu tes of p ersonh oo d w ere th ey f orme d un der com pu lsion of t he [ s] tate.”). f . is w hy , f or instance, the m ajority coul 97 This ind an Equ al P rotectio n violation in Parent s d Invol ved , w here ind ividual stud ents w ere som etim es assig ned to schoo ls based on race bu t no racial s group erently in agg rega te. See Parent as treated diff Invol ved , 551 U .S. at 71 1-1 2 (d escribing w racial tiebreake r). It is also, presuma bly , w hy Justice Kenne d y sugge sted in that case that race - plicit conscio th at did no t u se ex us action classif ication s, s uch as “draw ing attend ance zones with

16 76 I I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI ANA LAW REV any suc cl ass if ic at ion and , the re for e, it is re aso nab le tha t uni nte nti ona l invol ve h ion ant can not cr eat e a cl ai m unde r iminat i- cl ass if ic at ion is t equ al dis cr 9 8 ct ion pro te . he h fa il ure to pr ote ct per om ct ive, t the ar m m ore li kely l ie s in the fr But spe inj ury suf fe re d, whic h the st at e has fa il ed to avert or re m edy. I nte nt is fa r act ual ss re vant. Put ano the r way, fa il ure to pro te ct see m s to demand equ al it y of le le e in hat ant i- cl ass if ic at ion doe s not . P way t r h a p s , o n e m ight say, ex come a out equ al it y is suf fi ci ent , so th at ant ine vitab le fa il ure s to pro te ct par ti cul ar e ividu s due to bad luc k or unf ore see abl e al rc um st anc es , w hic h pro duc e ex ind ci t ine qua li ty, do not cr eat e a cl ai m . But gro s s n egligenc e see m s m ora ll y pos pab cul eno ugh to be act ion abl e, and pol ic ie s wit h dis par at e imp a c t m ight be le exi ect ghtene d scr uti ny (i f ti er s of scr uti ny hei st ed in fa il ure to pro te ct j ed to sub 9 9 nce ) if k nowl edge, rat her tha n inte nt, cou ld be sho wn. (A sta te tha t j uri spr ude i s fa il ing to pro te ct a group pla usi bly viola te s it s equ al it pro te ct ion ws kno igati re gardl ess of whet her it in ons nds th at con seq uen ce. ) obl te hat cou ld pro duc e a dif fe re nt re sul t i n, f or ins ta nce , ca ses cha ll enging th e T il fa of pol ic e for c e s t o tr eat domesti c viole nce as ser iou sl y as st ra nger ure 1 0 0 te hes e pol i c ie s dis pro por ti ona ly impact wom en, but si nce the nce T viole . er nm ent cl ass if ic at ion is sex - neu tr al on it s fa ce (i t re li es not on the sex of the gov i m but whet her the victi m knew the a s s a l ant ), it re cei ves ra ti ona l bas is victi 1 0 1 the ant i- cl ass if ic at ion app roa ch. Given t hat the out come of the re view under pol ic s is overwhe lmingly a fa il ure to pro te ct wom en, however , th e ar gum ent ie hei d scr uti ny woul d be st ron g onc e the int ent re qui re m ent is aba ndon ed for ghtene duc o knowle dge. re ed t or fa il ure to pr ote ct per spe ct ive m ight giv e a dif fe re nt loo k to so m Las t, a e of st ion s abo ut Congres s’ s power to enf que e the Equa l Pro te ct ion Cla use the orc r Sec ti on Five of the Four te ent h Am end m ent . I n Unit ed Sta te s v. Mo rri unde , son for ins ta nce , the Cour t hel d tha t the cr eat ion of the V iol e nce Against Wo m en oo l recognitio th e dem ographi cs o f neighb orh f ds” w ou ld no t fa ce strict scrutiny. Id. at genera n o 9 (Kenn edy , J., concu rring). 78 . s m ight, of course, qu ibb le w ith this do ctrine, perhap 98 on the groun d that the analy sis One classif ld ocus shou op pression and subo rdin ation rather than f ication , bu t that is no t m y current on concern. 99 . I su gg ested above that the baseline leve l of scrutin y m ight be som ethin g m ore than ration al revie w . It m ight still m ake sense to have eve n higher leve ls of scrutin y f or f ailure to basis rt tect s, f or esse ntially th e reasons the Cou group has adop ted in the anti-classif ication pro certain ext. cont 0. See, e.g. , Hy nson v. City of Chester Le gal Dep’t, 10 4 F.2 d 10 26 (3d Cir. 19 88 ) (f ind ing 86 no qu al pro tection v iolatio n w here plaintiff s e d t hat p olice o f f icers treate d “d om estic abuse allege case s diff erently than no n-d om estic abuse case s”). Much the sam e argum ent coul d be m ade aga inst We m exe m ptio ns. See general ly Rob i n rape st , Equ alit y Theo ry, Marital Rap e, an d the arital Promise of the Fou rteenth Amendment , 42 F L A . L. R E V . 45 , 45 (19 90 ) (stating that “a m ore ob vious deni rotectio n i s diff icult to im agine”). al of equal p 10 1. See Ricke tts v. City of Colu m bia, Mo. , 36 F.3 d 77 5, 78 1 (8th Cir. 19 94 ) (no ting that over nin ety percent o f victim s of do m estic violence are f em ale).

17 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 77 THE SLAUGHTER 1 0 2 ’s Rem edy exc eed ed Co ngress ’s powe r u nde r Sec ti on Five. Rights Act Civil Civil T Rem edy gav e victi m s of gender - m oti vated viole nce a caus e of he Rights in s der al cou rt as a sub st it ute for the s t a t e -l a w cl ai m tha t st at e and act ion fe bas al for ces had fou nd ina deq uat e b eca use of per vasive sex - ta ed fe der sk 1 0 3 at e j udi ci al ion m s. iminat in st cr dis syste re ach tha t re sul t, the Mo rri son m aj ori ty re li ed on the Reco T ruc ti on- er a o nst vil ghts cas es, divin ing the rul e tha t Sec ti on Five le gisla ti on cou ld not re gulat e ci ri 1 0 4 ct T hat rul e le ft Congres s wit h no pra es. ic al m ean s to add re ss the par vate ti pri m it had ide nti fi ed. A ci vil remedy pro agains t sta te off ic ia ls was ess ent ia ll y ble onc vable: Bia s by st at e j udges or oth er ei ic ia ls woul d be dif fi cul t to pro ve inc off ind ividu al cas in A fe der al re m edy tha t ra n agains t the m f o r the ir off ic ia l es. con t woul d be abs urd ly int rus ive, in add it ion to ove rt urn ing lon gstan din g duc adi ti of j udi ci al and pr ose cut ori al imm uni ty. tr ons Congres wit hou t a me a n s to re m edy the pro ble m ving m ight see m Lea s ed abl ept the kind of viola ti on Congres s ide nti fi e is at the per iph er y of equ al acc if te ct ion , as it is fr om t h e ant i- cl ass if ic at ion is t per spe ct ive. Aft er al l, pro st to ia l p o w er sub re m edy st at e cl ass if ic at ion s per si st s. But fr om the fa il ure ant pro wit ct per spe ct ive, Mo rri son re nde rs Sec ti on Five al m ost a nul li ty to h te spe ri to the Equa l Prot ect ion Cla use ; it st re kes down fed er al le gisla ti on in the ct if adi cas e, par a m ar ginal one . T hus , gm equ al pro te ct ion had gone the fa il ure not to pro te ct rou te , the Cour t m ight have bee n less wil li ng to for bid a Sect ion Five re m t p ri vate a ct ors . edy agains n sum, usi ng equ al pro te ct ion on fa il ure t o pro te ct and le aving ant i- I foc es iminat for pri vi l e ge s or imm uni ti m ight have had very si gnifi can t cr ion dis ct s. I t cou ld, as a genera l m at t e r , h a ve ef pro duc ed a great er re cep ti vity to fe 1 0 5 pos it ive ri ghts. Mo re spe ci fi ent ly, it mi gh t have al lowe d the gum s for ar cal t to engage in m ore agg re ssi ve re view of Cour il ure to pro te c t cl ai m s tha n it fa cur ntl y doe s unde r the Equa l Pro te ct ion Cla use . Such cl ai m s woul d be see n as re of and not a per iph er al , con cer n e, the Cla use , and agg r e s si ve the cor view—a ban doni ng the r u l e tha t dis par at e re m er it s onl y ra ti ona l bas is impact re for ins ta nce , or ado pti ng a sl ightl y m view, de m and ing bas el ine tha n ra ti ona l ore bas is —wo uld not nec ess ar il y ope ra te in the ant ic la ssi fi cat ion con te xt. Las t, see ing fail to pro te ct as the par adi gm cas e mig ht have m ade it har der for the ure suc t e tha t Sec ti on Five re m edi es in rul h cas es can not run agains t pri vate Cour to ors , si nce th at ru li ng lea ves th e viol at ion s a ll but ir re m edi abl act e. 10 United States v. Mo rrison , 5 29 U.S. 59 8, 62 7 (2 00 0). 2. 56 3. Joseph R. Bi den, Domestic Viol ence: 10 t a Qua rrel , T R IAL See , 5 9 (Ju ne A Crime, No 19 ). 93 4. Morrison 10 29 U.S. at 6 20 . , 5 10 5. I do no t discou nt the f ormidable practical pro blem s associate d wi t h a jurisp rud ence of po sitive Most no t ably , agg ressiv e jud icial enforce m ent of po sitive rights risks com plete rights. icial jud of governm ent: on e m ight see jud ges take run nin g po lice departme nts by inju nctio n. over B u t som e of these pro blem s coul d be dealt w ith by lim itin g rem edies to dam age s, r at h er t h an coun inju ns, and in any eve nt m y claim is on ly that jud ges in the nctio terf actual wo r l d wo u ld be an th relative m ore receptive to p ositive rights argum ents th ly ey are in t he real w orld .

18 78 I ANA LAW REV I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI hat Due P ess Coul d Hav e Be en C. W roc 1 0 6 nat the Bra dl e y dis sen t in Sla ught er- Hous e had Alt if ively, er what tha Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es Cla use , ra the r he n the D u e P r o c ess d? T pre vaile woul d be the one tha t pro te ct s fun damenta l ri ghts, Cla lud ing m ost Bil l of use , inc gh s li ber ti es, fr om st at e int er fe re nce t Wh at woul d due pro ces s do in thi s R i . d? worl is re la ti vely comm on to ass er t tha t I st ant ive due p roc ess ar ose as a t sub epl m ent for the pri vileges or imm uni ti es j uri spr ude nce tha t sho uld ha ve r ace 0 1 7 f we bel ie ve tha t, the n the m ost li kely cou nte rf act ual his tor y for the Due n. I bee s imm use , ass um ing tha t pri vileges or ces u n i t ie s too k the fun damenta l Pro Cla t ta is ghts one in whic h s u b s t a n ck, i ve due pro ces s never exi st ed. But the ri er ti on is ass par ti al ly acc ur at e at bes t. Subs ta nti ve due pro ces s exi st ed bef ore Sla er- Hous e ; it exi st ed bef ore the Four te ent h Am end m ent or the Civil Wa r, ught 1 0 8 ost ly in Dred Sco tt . (Ex is te d as a con cep t, tha t is , not a name; the m ous m fa abl r s h w o uld not be coi ned unt il con si der a y la te r and woul d not app ear in a p e 1 0 9 opi nio n unt il 1948 .) So whil e it is pro bab ly fa ir to say tha t the Supr eme Cour t n o r p o r at ion of the i Bil l of Rights thr ough the Due Pro ces s Cla use , and t h e c u oci “f unda m ent al ri ghts” versi on of s ed b s t ant ive due pro ces s, is a ass at pla cement for pri vileges or imm uni ti es j uri spr ude nce , thi s re s not exh aus t the doe con t. I nde ed , t h e e ar ly versi on of sub st cep ive due pro ces s was somethi ng ant 1 1 0 er te . qui di ff ent S u b s t ant ive due pro ces s now is a m at te r of fi ndi ng in the Due P r o c e s s Cla use b y w h a t e ve r te st , fun damenta l ri ghts tha t can tr um p st at e la ws. I n thi s , it has bee n cr it ic ized as har d to der ive fr om the te xt of the cl aus e, and even, guise 1 1 1 cr r o nic . T he m er it s of tho se ly, it ic is m s asi de, the y can not be ous m ymo fa ox vied a t t he ear ly versi on, for tha t kind of due pro ces s fol lows eas il y f rom t le he te I t i s a re qui re m ent tha t if the gov er nm ent pro pos es to dep ri ve indi vidual s xt. li ean , li ber ty, or pro per ty, it do so by m of s of a valid la w. I t giv es ind ividu al s fe fe fe al con st it uti ona l ri ght—a gains t the der der al gov er nm ent thr ough the Fif th a Am end m ent and the st at es thr ough the Four te ent h—a gains t la wle ss gov er nm ent act ion . 6. Slaughter-Ho ses, 83 U .S. (16 W all.) 36, 11 1-2 4 (187 2) (Bradley , J., dissentin g). 10 use Ca 47 7. ef ur, supra no te 31 , at 1 Sand -48 (no ting and criticizing th is trend ). 10 See 8. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 39 10 (18 56 ), superseded by U.S. C O N ST . am end. 3 X ; see also Ry an C. William s, The One an d Only Su IV ntive Due P rocess Clause , 1 20 Y AL E bsta L.J. 408 , 4 67 (20 10 ). 10 9. See Wa y ne Mc C or m ack , Econ omic Su bsta ntive Due Process an d the Righ t of Liveliho od , 82 K . L.J. 397 , 4 06 & n. 55 (19 93 ) (citin g Repub lic Natural Ga s Co. v. Oklahom a, 334 U.S. 62 , Y (19 ) (Rut ledge, J., d issenting)). 90 48 0. For a m ore exte nsive developme nt of som e 11 the f ollo w ing po ints, see Roo sev elt, supra of no te 23 . 11 1. See J O HN H AR T E L Y , D E M O C R AC Y AN D D IST R U ST : A T HE O R Y O F J U D IC IAL R E V IE W 18 -20 (19 80 ).

19 2011 ] SES 79 THE SLAUGHTER -HOUSE CA the Sin Pro ces s Cla use doe s not , on thi s re adi ng, cr eat e any add it ion al ce Due idi pro te ct s indi vidual s only fr om it the enf orc ement of la ws of inval ty, grounds e inval id for some ind epe nde nt r e a s o n . I t doe s not , tha t is , cr eat e ri ghts t ar tha can ser ve as tr um ps agains t oth er wis e- valid la ws. R a t h e r , i t pro vides a t tha s of re s is ti ng la ws tha t exc eed the sovere ign’s le gisla ti m power . But the ean ve il to cr eat e r ights doe s no t mak e i t r edu nda nt, or even un import ant . fa ure ut Due Pro ces s Cla use , an ind ividu al cou ld per hap s r e si st tho Wi the ori zed gov er nm ent act ion on st at e la w grounds . He cou ld, for ins t a nce , una uth ct ize t ra he government o ff ic ia ls tr ying to en for ce a law as tr esp ass er s a nd cha er 1 1 2 fe tor t. But a st e tor t cl ai m and a m der al con st it uti ona l cl ai m ar e the in sue at dif fe re nt, not abl y in te rms of an ind ividu al ’s abi li ty to invoke fe der al very u j s d i c t ion . Pri or to the ra ti fi cat ion of the Due Pro ces s Cla use , ind ividu al s r i ent enged s ta te ac ti on o n t he basi s of the argum ent ll tha t it exc eed ed equ ly cha fr 1 1 3 st at e pol ic e power . T his was typic al ly the rs too d as an app eal boun ds of unde genera con st it uti ona l la w—pr inc ipl es comm on to all l fr ee st at es— and hen ce to 1 1 4 l a i m b a s ed on fe der al la w. Fede ra l cou rt s cou ld, and did , hea r the se not a c m ts some oth er bas is for j uri sdi ct ion , suc h as diver si ty, exi st ed, but when ost sui 1 1 5 suc h cl ai m s c oul d no t get in al fe der al cou rt . ividu s wi th ind to he ra ti fi cat ion o f t h e Due Pro ces s Cla use cha nged thi ngs; by giv ing T at ividu s a fe der al ri ght ag ai nst la wle ss st al e acti on, it ef fe ct ively fe der al ized ind 1 1 6 l con st it uti ona l li m it s on st at e pol ic e power . Armed wit h bot h Fif th the genera and te ent h Am end m ent Due Pro ces s ri ghts, ind ividu al s cou ld now ass er t in Four der al cou rt , as f e d e r a l con st it uti ona l cl ai m s, ar gum ent s tha t st at e or fe der al fe 1 1 7 nm te ppe d t er imits on t hei r p ower s. he l s ha d overs gov ent the e the se li m at s? Wi th re spe ct to ar fe der al gov er nm ent , the m ost Wh it li m it is the fa ct tha t fe der al power s ar obvious spe ci fi c and enu m er at ed; the re e i n o gen er al fe der al pol ic e power . Wh en Congres s re gulat es int ra st at e s om er ci al act ivit y, it goes beyond i t s nonc e n um er at ed power s, acc ord ing to m 1 1 8 1 1 9 l But what con st it uti ona son pro visio n shi el ds an ind ividu al rri Mo and Lope z . agains t suc h ul tr a vi res la wm aking? T he Supr eme Cour t has not giv en thi s que st m uch app ar ent tho ught, but on the acc ount develo ped a b o ve , i t is the ion sho oce use th at Cla uld be invoked. Due Pr ss her li m it , whic h app li es to st at e l egisl at ive j uri sdi ct ion (o r use d to) , is Anot endme 2. A khil A 11 ar’s sugge stion of state tort law as a r eme d y for Fou rth A m See nt m violation or ex am ple, A khil Ree d A m ar, Fou rth Amendment First s, in, f les , 10 7 H AR V . L. Princip R E V . 7 57 , 7 59 (19 94 ). 11 3. Michael G . Colli ns, Before Lochner —Diversity Jurisdictio n an d the Deve lop ment of See . 1 nstitu al Law , 7 General Co U L . L. R E V tion 26 3, 13 04 -15 (20 00 ). 4 T 11 4. Id. 11 5. Id. 11 6. See Michael G . Colli ns, October Term, 18 96 —Emb racing Due Process , 45 A M . J. L E GAL ). H 1, 72 -74 (20 01 . 7 IST 11 7. See id. at 9 2-9 5. 11 8. United States v. Mo rrison , 5 29 U.S. 59 8 (2 00 0). 11 9. United States v. Lopez, 5 14 U.S. 54 9 (1 99 5).

20 80 I I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI ANA LAW REV phy. geog of the seminal Loch ner - er a cas es— ind eed , one fr equ ent ly ci te d ra One 1 2 0 All cognit ion of a fun damenta l ri ght—i s le gey er v. Lo uis ian a . s ged re it al for t cas e, Loui si ana sou ght to app ly it s m ar ine I ins ura nce re gulat ion s to a loc al n tha t ent er ed int o a con tr act in New York had sub seq uen tl y m ai le d tha company and 1 2 1 f ic at ion le tt er fr om a Orl ean s. I m per m is si ble , the Cour t sai d: A n o t i New tr tha t “was valid in t h e p l a c e wher e m ade and wher e it was to be con act m u was one tha t Loui si ana had “no ri ght or j for r is dic ti on to pre vent it s per ed,” 1 2 2 i om m aking out si de the li m it s of the i st at e.” T his is not , of cou rs e, t ze n c fr g tha t a fun damenta l ri ght to con tr act tr um ps a st at e’ s pol ic e power —New sayin sur York cou ld have san ct ion ed the par ti es for not complying wit h it s m ar ine el y ying nce ws, whic h is what Loui si ana was tr la to do. I t is ra the r t he ura ins ion tha t an at te m pt to impose li abi li ty bas ed on con duc re out si de a st at e’ s cognit t gisla ve j uri sdi ct i o n i s n o t due pro ti s of la w bec aus e the la w by whic h the le ces 1 2 3 te m pts to act is inva l i d . T he la w li te ra ll y can not re ach the par ti es to st at e at ia m it s san ct ion s, and any at te m pt to con fi sca te the ir m one y (Lo uis e n a pos i 1 2 4 gey er ) i s a dep ri vatio n of pr o f rt y witho ut le gal war ra nt. ed t ine All want ope t, and m ost not ori ous ly, the Supr eme Cour t us e d t o use m ore or le ss Las ona tr pol it ic al the ory—t he genera l con st it uti act l la w m ent ion ed ear li er —t o abs 1 2 5 m it s on the pol ic e power of the st at es. T his is Loch ner - er a sub st ant ive der ive li due ces s, and if we want to know what due pro ces s m ight have done had it not pro n dra ed int o the fun damenta l r ights bus ine ss, th at is what we nee d to loo k bee ft . at 1 2 6 view tha t I fi nd per sua si ve, cou rt s app lying Loch ner - er a Acco ng to the rdi 16 the U.S. 57 8 (18 97 ). For 0. characteriz ation of Allg eye r as recognizing a f un dam ental 5 12 Tho f exa m ple, Dav id N. May er, Justice Clarence or mas an d the Su preme Cou rt ’ s see, right, e Tenth Amend ment , 2 5 C AP . U. L. R E V . 3 39 , 3 68 n. 95 (19 96 Rediscovery of th ). 12 Allg eye r , 1 65 U.S. at 5 79 -80 . 1. 2. Id. 92 . 12 at 5 s This no lon ger the case . In a 3. of case is culm inatin g in Allsta te Ins. Co. v. Hag ue , 12 series 9 U.S. 30 2 (19 81 ), the Sup rem e Cou rt relax ed the geogr ap h i ca l l i m 44 on state legislativ e its jurisd . iction at 5 4. r , 1 65 U.S. eye 88 -89 . 12 See Allg 5. See Col lins, supra no te 11 3, at 13 04 -11 . 12 characteriz 12 ere has been m uch debate abou t the pro per Th ation of the Loch n er er a. 6. Con tem po rary critics charge d that the Cou rt w as simply substi tuti ng i t s vi ews of wise p olicy f or tho se the legislature. See, e.g. , E D W AR D S. C O R W IN , C O U R T O V E R C O N ST IT U T ION : A S T U D Y O F of i U IC IAL R E V IE W AS AN I N ST R U M E N T J F P O PU L AR G O V E R N M E N T (19 50 ) (discussing j ud D c ial revie w O as m echanism f or substit utin g legislativ e po licy ). This w as a rheto rically po w erf ul m a iven ove, g the m erican pu blic’s persistent concern w ith the A of jud icial activism , and it established a specter conventio nal w isdo m abou t Loch ner that persisted into the 19 90 s. Then, beginn ing w ith w ork by k i Howa illm an , B ar ry Cushma n, and oth ers, a revisionist view of Loch ner , w hich too G t to be rd anim in large part by equalit y ated developed. Most rece ntly, Dav id Bernstein has concerns, attem pted to argue, cont rary to the revisionists, that Loch ner -ian jurisp rud ence w as m ore concerned partial w un dam ental rights t ha n w ith f legislation. Dav id E. Bernstein, Lochner Era Revisioni sm, ith Revised: Lochner an d the ). s of Fun da mental Righ ts Con stitut i on al i s m , 92 G E O . L.J. 1 (20 03 Origin

21 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 81 THE SLAUGHTER pro s wer e not at te m pti ng to ide nti fy une n u m er at ed fun damenta l ri ghts due ces tr um oth er wis e valid exe rc is es of st at e power . I nst ead , st ar ti ng wit h the tha t ped imite t peo ple did not del e ga t e unl ple d power to the gov er nm ent , but pri nci tha pos r eat ed it for cer ta in li m it ed pur r es, the y wer e pre venti ng the the ra c 2 7 1 fr om doi ng thi ngs tha t peo ple cou ld never have int end ed it to do. gov er nm ent peo he woul d never, cou rt s re aso ned , have giv en the power t o d o s uch T ple ach an t h e r e f o r e no at te m pt to ie ve the m cou ld be digni fi ed wit h the ngs, thi d ces s of la w. name due pro egori t of thi ngs m ight be cat at cal ly beyond the li m it s of gov er nm ent Wh sor exa n ? er v. Bul l , J ust ic e Chas e gav e I m ple s: Peop le woul d not giv e power Cald gov er nm ent power to puni sh i n n o c e n t the act ion s, or to m ake peo ple j udges in 1 2 8 cas es, or to ta ke pro per ty fr om one per son and giv e it to ano the r. T o the own ir the poi nt genera ll y, we cou ld say tha t peo ple woul d not giv e the gov er nm ent put 1 2 9 ws tr ar y t o the publ ic int er es . T his dis ti nct ion —be twe en la act to con power t t were good fa it h att empts to pro m ote the ic int er est and tho se tha t were tha publ bit ra ry, oppr ess ive, or par ti al le gisla ti on— was the one tha t Loch ner - er a cou rt s ar ght to orc e. sou enf f the is sue is j ust whet her a l aw i s i n t he p ubl ic in te re st , it m ight see m tha t I a j st ri ke it down bas ed si m ply on can pol ic y dis agree m ent —i n whic h cas e, a udge ner ’s con te m por ar y cr it ic s woul d be ri ght af Loch r al l. But Loch ner - er a cou rt s te 1 3 0 ly den ie d tha t the y had thi s power . ead And the y wer e ri ght, in the sen se st fa st tha t the y re li ed on some pri nci ple s tha t li m it ed j udi ci al dis cr et ion . Nota bly, the y te nde to ta ke the comm on la w as a neu tr al bas el ine and to view skept ic al ly la ws d t dep te d fr om the c o mmo n l a w to fa vor one group or ano the r. Such la ws tha ar d if they to e int end ed ld be uphel pro m ote some tr adi ti ona l obj ect of the cou wer See f Barry Cushma n’s rebut tal of Bernstein persuasive. ind Barry Cushma n, So me Varieties an d I es of Loch n erism , 85 B.U. L. R E V . 88 1, Vicissitud 3-9 44 (20 05 ). For an analy sis of the 88 developme of the concept of rig hts as trumps, see How ard Gillm an, Preferre d F reedoms: Th e nt of ressiv of St ate Po wer and th e Rise sion Modern Civil Lib erties Jurisprud ence , 4 7 Prog e Expan O L . R E S . Q. 6 23 (19 94 ). P in 7. rob 12 the canon ical cite f or this prin ciple is Justice Chase’s op inio n P Cald er v. Bull , ably 3 U.S. (3 Da , 388 (1798 ), w hich s ll.) 386 ght to identify inherent lim its on the police pow er via ou a species of social cont ract reasonin g. Justice Chase no ted, “T he pu rpo ses f or w hich m en enter into society ill determ ine the natu re and term s of the social co m pact; and as they are the f ou nd ation w pro the po w er, they w ill decide w hat are the e per ob jects of it: The natu re, and ends of of legislativ e po w er w ill l im it th e ex ercise of it.” Id. “A n act o f the legislature,” Ch ase con tinu ed, legislativ pact, or canno t call it a law ) cont rary to the grea t f irst prin ci ples of the social com I canno t be “(f consid ise of leg islative autho rity .” Id. (em ph asis om itted). ered a rightful exerc 8. Cald er , 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) at 3 88 . 12 12 9. See J O HN V . O R T H , D U E P R O C E S S O F L A W : A B R IE F H IST O R Y 51 -73 (20 03 ) (explorin g evolutio f th e pu blic i nterest requ irem ent). n o 13 0. See Lochner v. New York, 19 8 U.S. 45 , 56 -57 (19 05 ) (“T his is no t a qu esti o n of or that o substi jud gm ent of the court f ng the f th e legisla ture. If the act be within the powe r of tuti the state it is valid, alth ou gh th e jud gm ent of the court m ight b e totally opp osed t o t he enactm ent of such a law.” ).

22 82 I ANA LAW REV I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI ic e , suc h as hea lt h—t his is why the Cour t uphe ld a m axi m um hour la w pol power 1 3 1 m Hold en v. Hard y . But if the y loo ked li ke at te m pts to re dis tr ibu te for in ine rs power w suc h as a m ini m um wage or m axi mu m hour la ng wit hout a bar gaini , j if ic at ion , the Cour t h li abl e to st ri ke the m down, as it ust did in Adki ns hea lt was 1 3 2 al and Loch ner n’s sel f. dre Hosp it il v. Ch it the se too ls —t he ide a of the comm on la B as a pre - le gal giv en and o f ut w dis ibu ti on as an im pe rm is si ble st at e pur pos e— m el te d in the cau ldr on of Legal re tr 1 3 3 re Depr ess ion . Once t he Co urt th cognized t hat comm on m e Gr eat is and Real was, in fa ct , st at e la w—an ins ight usu al ly ass oci at la wit h Eri e v. w ed 1 3 4 use as a bas el ine fr om whic h —i me a s ure re dis tr ibu ti ve ins ts Tompk to ar tur es bec ame inc ohe re nt. Equa ll dep ser iou s, the ide a tha t peo ple woul d never y have hor ized the gov er nm ent to engage in re dis tr ibu ti on came to see m si m ply aut ibl e. I t m ight be, for ins ta nce , tha t some kind of re dis tr ibu ti on is the onl y implaus 1 3 5 rna wide spr ead e c o n o mic col la pse . I te suc h cas es, peo ple woul d n ve to al ti sumably want th o ha ve the powe r t o do it . pre e government t et ut h pri nci ple s to tho it s dis cr suc ion , the Cour t had onl y two Wi guide ic es: I t cou ld engage in a re la ti vely unguide d sup er visio n of le gisla cho ve pol ic y ti dec ion s, or it cou ld def er . T he Am er ic an co mmi t me n t to sel f- gov er nan ce by is e ple and the ir el ect ed re pre sen ta ti ves m akes the for m er cho ic the h ar d to peo ta bra and eventu al ly the Cour t e m sus ced def er enc e. “[W ]he n the legis la tur e in, he ken,” it has noun ced in Ber man v. Park er , “t spo publ ic int e r e s t h a s bee n pro 6 3 1 d i n t m s we ll - nigh co ncl usi ve.” re la dec er at s thi s m ean ? I f the ear ly versi on of sub st ant ive due pro ces s die d for Wh doe ns at ed to Sla ught er- Hous e , o n e el might thi nk, the n a cou nte rf act ual aso unr re y in w h i c h t h e Pri vileges or I m his uni ti es Cla use bor e the bur den of tor m te ing fun damenta l ri ghts st il l woul d not ct m ean ingfu ll y dif fe re nt as fa r as pro be st ant ive due pro ces s goes. I t would j sub be the Due Proc ess Cla use tha t was ust m bund , ra the r t han Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es. ori not , Loch ner - er a subst ant ive due proce ss did ct die —or at le ast , it But, in fa not in the 1930 s. T he can oni cal re pudi at ion o f a ggr e s si ve sub did ant ive due st 1 3 7 view is Unit ed Sta te s v. Caro le ne Prod uct s C o . , w ces er e the Cour t pro s re h pro ced : noun , 3 1. 9 U. 13 66 16 98 (18 98 ). S. 3 13 2. 26 1 U.S. 52 5 (19 23 ), overruled in pa rt by We st Coast Hotel Co. v. P arrish, 30 0 U.S. 37 9 (19 37 ). ing 3. descriptio n of this m ovem ent, see, f or exa m ple, Brian Z. Ta m anaha, Und erstand a 13 For l Real , 8 7 T E X . L. ism E V . 7 31 (20 09 ). Lega R 4. 30 4 U. S. 6 4, 79 13 38 ). (19 13 Historically , this w as the justification used in Home Buil din g & Loa n Ass’n v. Blai sdell , 5. ent 0 U.S. 398 ). Mor e rece ntly, the f ederal governm (1934 used it to justify the T rou bled A sset 29 Relief P rogram (TA RP ) bank bailo ut. See general ly A N D R E W R O SS S O R KIN , T O O B IG T O F AIL : T HE E I SID E S T O R Y O F H O W W AL L S T R E E T AN D W AS HIN GT O N F O U GHT T O S AV E T HE F INA N C IAL S Y ST N M inform F O M C R ISIS — AN D T HE M SE L V E S (20 09 ) (pro viding backg rou nd R ation on the bank bailo ut). 95 13 Berm an v. P arke r, 3 48 U.S. 26 , 3 2 (1 6. 4). 13 7. 30 4 U. S. 1 44 (19 38 ).

23 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 83 THE SLAUGHTER egulat ory gisla ti on af fe ct in g o rdi nar y comm er ci al tr ans act ion s is [R] le to b p r onou nce d unc ons ti tut ion al unl ess in the li ght of the fa ct s not e known to genera ll y ass um ed it is of suc h a cha ra ct er as pre cl ude m ade or hin um on tha t it re st ass upon some ra ti ona l b a s i s wit pti the the s 1 3 8 th e l egisl at ors ri xpe enc e of ge and e knowled . 3 9 1 il eo m utt er ing ben eat h his bre at h “[ a] nd yet it m oves,” the Cour t But, li ke Gal 1 4 0 ed t nte nce it s most f amous fo otn ote , fo otn ote fo ur. hat end se app o t abo foo tno te fou r abo ut? I t is ut when j udi ci al re view m ay at is Wh m at el y be m ore agg re ssi ve tha n the def er ent ia l ra ti ona l bas is st and le d. giti ar of occ asi ons the Cour t off er s are obvious : Wh en a law is “on its fa ce Some the 1 4 1 ti a spe ci . c pro hib it ion of the Cons wit tut ion ” no one woul d say tha t the . hin . fi t is act Cour il le gi t i ma t el y in st ri king it down. Some ar e per hap s m ore ing con oversi al : Laws tha t re st ri ct the pol it ic al pro ces s, the Cour t says, m ay be tr ore ose ly scr uti nized even, app ar ent ly, if the y do not fa ll af oul of a par ti cul ar m cl 1 4 2 it pro visio n. Again, however , the re aso st g i s re la ti vel y eas y t o nin ona l con uti to out I f cou rt s ar e sup p o s e d ake def er to le gisla tur es for re aso ns of m : ti c le giti m acy, the y m ust be con fi den t tha t the l e gi s l at ure is democra not 1 4 3 ic pr oce ss to ins ula te it sel f f rom popul ar re view. unde g the d emocrat rminin i t, te fou r sugg est s tha t pre j u d tno c e agains t cer ta in “di scr et e and Las foo ula r m ino ri ti es” m ay be a spe ci al fa ct or m il ins at ing in fa vor of m ore agg re ssi ve it 1 4 4 re view. I t is now comm onpl ace to udi te thi s par t of the foo tno te as the j ci al ci bir thp la ce of the “ s u spe ct cl ass ” equ al pro te ct ion doc tr ine , whic h is fa ir giv en 13 8. at 1 52 (citation s omitted). Id. 9. See, , Jam es Boy le, The Secon d Enclo sure Moveme nt an d the Con struction of the 13 e.g. in O 6 L AW & C O N T E M P . P R lic Doma BS . 3 3, 45 (20 03 ) (recoun ting sto ry ). Pub , 6 here Carol Prod s. , 30 4 U.S. at 15 2 n.4 (“T ene m ay be narrower scope f or op eration of the 14 0. of constit utio nality w hen legislation appears on its f ace to be w ithi n a specif ic presumption hib n pro of the Con stitut ion , such as tho se of the f irst ten A m endme nts, w hic h ar e d eem ed itio specif ry w hen held to be em braced w ithi n the Fou rteenth. . . . It is un necessa equally to consid er ic ted w w heth er legislation w hich restricts no se po litical pro cess es w hich can ord inarily be expec tho to g abou t repeal of un desirable legislation, is to brin subj ected to m ore exa cting jud icial scrutin y be un der the genera l pro hib itio ns of the Fou rteenth A m endme nt than are mo st o t h er ty pes of legislation. . . Nor need w e enqu ire w heth er sim ilar consid erations enter into the revie w of statutes . heth at . . or racial minoriti es . . . w ar religious . er preju dice aga inst discrete and directed particul lar m ino rities m ay be a special cond itio n, w hich tend s seriously insu curtail the op eration of tho se to po pro cess es ord inarily to be relied up on to pro litical m ino rities, and wh i ch may call f or a tect correspon din gly m ore searching ju dicial in qu iry . . . .”) (citatio ns o m itted). 14 1. Id. 2. 14 Id. 3. The pro blem is that som etim es the legislature 14 ay be attem ptin g to im pro ve the po litical m p r o ce ss , an d i t m ay have a better sense t han the Cou rt of what w ill do so. The Co urt’s apparent alm view ore speech is alw ay s better is crude and at m ost certainly w ron g. See Citizens Un ited th v. Fed. Election Comm ’n, 13 0 S . Ct. 87 6 (2 01 0). 04 14 Carol ene Prod s. , 3 4. U.S. at 1 52 n. 4.

24 84 I ANA LAW REV I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI 1 4 5 t t t now seems to conc ei ve of it . But if we t hin k about his how the Cour tha is ne Caro s in con te xt, the ide a tha t the Cour t had dec ide d to use foo tno te Prod le uct 1 4 6 cha new cou rs e for equ al pro te ct ion see m to a bit odd. T he m ore s a fou r rt te unde ta ndi ng is tha t the end of the foo tno rs is exp la ini ng wh e n cou rt s ura nat l st ri ke down la ws on due pro ces s gr o u n d s wit hout can re pea ti ng the si n of ner tha t of sub st it uti ng j udi ci al for le gisla ti ve pol ic ym aking. I t te ll s us, tha t Loch , re a l ure ’s as ses sment of th e pu bli c i nte at st ca nnot be tr ust ed. , when egisl is cor e ide a is tha t le gisla tur es ar e re spo T ve to the pol it ic al ly power ful he nsi not the power le ss, and tha t the th er ef ore not give appr opr ia te wei ght and y may o t h t int er est s of the pol it ic al ly weak. Foot not e fou r il lus tr at es thi s poi nt by e 1 4 7 Cull och v. Ma ryl and and Sout h Caro li na Sta te High way Depar tme nt ci ng Mc ti 1 4 8 the n wel l Bros . , eac h of whic h invol ve st at e la ws ben ef it ing loc al s at B . a r v ens of-stat er s. As Barn wel l Brot her s put e of out- it “whe n the re gulat ion is exp s suc h a cha ra ct er tha t it s bur den fa ll s pri nci pal ly upon tho se wit hout the st at e, of gisla li ve act ion is not le kely to be subj ect ed to thos e poli ti cal re st ra int s which ti e al ly exe rt ed on l e gis la ti on wher e it m af fe ct s advers el y some int er est s ar nor 1 4 9 ta te .” wit hin th e s t en den s Wh ll on tho se who have no vo i ce in st at e pol it ic s, tha bur is , fa le tor s wi ll te nd to disc ount tho se bur gisla s. T hey wil l e nac t l aws tha t mak e den the ir con st it uen ts bet te r off , even if t h o s e l a w s do not inc re ase publ ic wel fa re when the bur den s ar e ta ken int o acc ount . T hey wil l ena c t la ws, in sho rt , tha t ir 5. See, , Toll v. Mor eno, 45 8 U.S. 1, 23 (19 82 ) (Black m un , J., concu rring) (describin g 14 e.g. Prod tection as “the m om ent the Cou rt began constru cting m od ern equal pro ene Carol ucts LO Rob J. Cy nkar, Dumpi ng on ctrine”); Federalism , 7 5 U . C O ert . L. R E V . 12 61 , 12 97 (20 04 ) do g Carol ene Prod ucts f oo tno te f ou r a s “a statem ent f rom the Cou rt of perhap s the single (describin ost equal po rtant elem ent of m pro tection do ctrine”); La w rence Schlam , Equ alit y in Cultu re an d im le ction Ev olu tion of the Equa l Protection Princip the Origins and , 24 N. I L L . Law: An Introdu to L. R E V . 42 5, 44 0-4 1 (20 04 ) (describi n g C a ro l en e Prod ucts as “a seem ingly inn U. us ocuo ‘econo ic du e p r o cess ’ op inio n, [ that] w ou ld ulti m ately m radically ) re-structure equal (and pro do ctrine”); see generally Felix G ilm an, The tection us Foo tno te Fou r: A Histo ry of th e Famo Carolene P rod u cts Foo tno te , 46 S. T E X . L. R E V . 16 3 (20 04 ) (discussin g t he histo rical cont ext o f f oo te f ou r and its impact on court s and aca dem ics). tno t seem 6. ne, the auth or of t he f oo tno te, did no Sto to th ink it set ou t a roadma p f or 14 Justice u al p r o t ection. In Skin ner v. Oklaho ma ex rel. Williamson , 31 6 U.S. 53 5, eq 4 (19 42 ) (St o n e, 54 C.J., co ng), St on e cited h is footn ote while asserting that th e case sho uld be d ecided on d ue ncurri Sto cess and no t equal pro tection pro groun ds. Id. , ne did no t seem to be asse rting a law -trumping f un dam ental right no t to be sterilized; he endo rsed the pro po sition that states m ay interfere w ith an ind to prevent the “transm ission . . . of his socially inju riou s tend encies.” liberty Id. (citing ividual’s Buck Bell, 274 U .S. 20 0 (192 7)). Ra ther, he a v. hen im po rtant i nterests are at stake , rgued that w narrow tailorin g, po ssibly by ind ividualized hearings, is requi red. Id. A law do es n ot constit ute o p du cess , that is, if th e scope of its coverag e f its to pro oo rly w ith its un derly ing justifications. e See id. 14 7. 17 U.S. (4 Whea t.) 3 16 (18 19 ). ). 14 30 3 U. S. 1 77 (19 38 8. 14 9. Id. at 1 84 n. 2.

25 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 85 THE SLAUGHTER e no t i he p ubl ic in te re st . ar n t the Usi ic int er est phr asi ng sho ws us the con nec ti on bet ween foo tno te ng publ 1 5 0 Foot not e fou r is te ll ing us th at . Loch ner - st yle due pr oce ss Loch nd ner fou r a il l le giti m at el y be employed—t hat le m ti ve ass es s m ent s of the publ ic ay st gisla est m ay le giti m at el y be sec ond-g ues by j udges— when le gisla tur es ar e er int sed ta bly bad at m akin g t h e a s pre ess m ent bec aus e the y car e m ore abo ut the dic s ple re ben ef it ed t han th e pe opl e who ar e bu rde ned . peo who a e ra l ide a is sur el y sou nd. I t is n for tha t re aso n tha t st at e la ws his ge T iminat ing agains t out - of-stat er s wer e an dis ect of s p e c i a l con cer n to the cr obj der Wh at Caro le ne Prod uct s pro pos s. to do was to ext end tha t sol ic it ude Foun ed cer ta in in-stat e groups . How exa ct ly to def ine tho se groups is a dif fi cul t to que ion ; over twe nty years ago Bruc e Ackerman ar gued power ful ly tha t st le ne uct s ’ foc us on “di scr et e and ins ula r m ino ri ti es” sub j ect to Caro Prod 1 5 1 udi deq u a t e . But if we want to spe cul j e abo ut wher e due at was ina pre ce pro c o ight have gone had it not bee n nee ded to ess te ct fun damenta l ri ghts, pr m tno te fo ur poi nts th e way. foo m ight re aso nab ly wonde r whet her thi s spe cul at ion can le ad anywher e. One y sho uld it m at te r if cou rt s do thi s ana lysi s unde r the Due Pro ces s Cla use Wh have the n the Equa l Pro te ct ion Cla use —we tha foo tno te fou r ana lysis in ei the r ra r e, d on’ t we ? cas ual no. Foot not e fou r was at one Act poi nt si gnifi can t in equ al pro te ct ion , ly, an is no lon ger. Foot not e fou r giv es but ant i- sub ord ina ti on the ory—i t cal ls for it j udi ci al sup er visio n of circ um st anc es in whic h legisl at ure s m ay fa il to cons ide r the t e r e s t s of the pol it ic al ly weak. I t doe s not con ta in an ant i- cl ass if ic at ion in ory—t he a tha t cer ta in kinds of g ov er nm en t li ne- dra wing ar e impermissi ble the ide ess ode of the ir pur pos e or con seq uen ce. B u t m gardl rn equ al pro te ct ion re 1 5 2 t. very m uch ant i- cl ass if ic at ion is Loch ner - st yle sub st ant ive due ine tr doc is ces s a c t u a ll y di ed when equ al pro te ct ion shi ft ed fr om ant i- sub ord ina ti on to pro i- ic ass if ant at ion , somethi ng tha t hap pen ed in the la st dec ade s of the twe nti et h cl 1 5 3 foo - sub ord ina ti on, and wit h it the tno te fou r m et hodo logy, is now tur Anti cen y. m ost ent ir el y absen t f rom the Cour t’ s j uri spr ude nce al . So on hin g t hat woul d ch ange i n t his cou nte rf act ual wor ld is th at an ant i- e t nt 0. no ther w ay of loo king at this developme 15 is thro ugh the lens of redistrib utio n. Loch ner A op erates un der the prem i se t h at redistrib utio n is never in the pu blic interest. See, e.g. , Mol ly S. McUsic, Loo Insid e Out: Institu tion al Ana lysis an d the Prob lem of Takin gs , 92 Nw . U. L. Rev. king U.S. 1, 63 8). Ca ses like Nebbia v. New York , 29 1 5 (199 50 2 (19 34 ), and Home Buil din g & 59 4-3 n Ass’n v. Blai sdell , 29 0 U.S. 39 8 (19 34 ), recognize that this is Loa t so, that w ho lesale jud icial no suspicio of redistrib utio n is m istake n. A nd f oo n te f ou r iden tifies a lim ited set of redistrib utio ns tno that w ill rem ain suspect: Those that w ork to the detrime nt of discrete and insu lar m ino rities subj ect to preju dice. ). 1. Bruce A. A cke rm an, Beyond Carolene P rod ucts, 9 8 H AR V . L. R E V . 71 3 (19 15 See 85 15 See, e.g. , P arents Involved in Cm ty . Sch. v. 2. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 55 1 U.S. 70 1 (20 07 ). Seattle 15 3. S ee , e. g. , A darand Con structo rs, Inc. v. P ena, 51 5 U.S. 20 0, 22 9 (19 95 ) (discussin g Co., f pro gram s) ; C i t y of Richm on d v. J.A . Croson ederal 48 8 U.S. 46 9, 49 6 (19 89 ) (addressing strict scrutin y for state race -based aff irm ative a ction ).

26 86 I ANA LAW REV I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI o r i n a t i o n visio n of equ al it y woul d li ve on in the Due Pro ces s Cla use . sub d fur Severa con seq uen ces fol low. Fir st , ant i- cl ass if ic at ion woul d be li m it ed the l r thi st es. Bol li ng v. Shar pe is a st ra o r w a r d D u e Pro ces s cas e on at s to the ightf 1 5 4 ved by foot not e f our - st yle thi nking. si her e is no nee d t o , ea ly re sol ount acc T os e th at F if th A m en dm ent due pro ces s re verse - inc orp su s eq ua l pr ot ec ti on . pp orate n seq uen ce, fe der al a f f i r m at ive act ion pro gram s woul d not be sub j ect to I con 1 5 5 ey are now. iny as d sc th ghtene rut hei foo tno te fou r due pr o ces s ana lysis doe s not re qui re for m al Sec ond, . if at ion s to tr igg er j udi ci al sus pic ion ic T he dis pos it ive is sue is not whet her ass cl le gisla tur e has dra wn a cer ta in kin d o f l i n e ; it is the whet her the al loc at ion of bur s and ben ef it s giv es cau se to doub t the le gisla tur e’ s abi li ty to wei gh the m den ura te Dis par at e impact cas es m ight wel l get hei ghtene d scr uti ny—at le ast acc ly. ing a e the dis e im pac t c ons is ts of bur den at sub set of a v uln er abl e se wher par tho I n te rms of tr ust ing a le gisla tur e’ s ass ess m ent of cos ts group. and ben ef it s, suc h ws uld act ual ly be m ore sus pec t: I sho a la w bur den s none of the power ful and la f but not al l, of the power le ss, the pol it ic some, cou nte rwe ight wil l sur el y be le ss al tha if it bur den ed al l of the power le ss. T he o t h e r ki n d o f dis par at e impact n d al bab ly not get hei ghtene d scr uti ny: I f a la w bur den s woul l of the power le ss pro al n pr of the power ful , the legisl at ure ca but oba bly be tr ust ed s inc e t he so many e den fa ll on bur si gnifi can t number o f p s o p l e to whom the le gisla tur e is a re spo nsi ve. T hus , if wom en wer e con si der e d a gr o u p in nee d of foo tno te fou r due ces s pro te ct ion , an abo rt ion re st ri ct ion (whi ch bur den s onl y wom en, but pro 1 5 6 y som ei ghtene d sc rut iny, whi le a 1980s pre fe re nce e of em) woul d get h onl th 1 5 7 veter ch bur den ed al m ost al l wom en but al so m any en) woul d not . m (whi for ans re r o c e s s n o t bee n re qui p d to ta ke up the loa d of pro te ct ing Had due damenta l r ights , th en i t c oul d ha ve cont inu ed t o serve an ant i- sub ord ina ti on fun ct is tha t fun now abs ent fr om our equ al pro te ct ion j uri spr ude nce . T his cou ld ion duc cul m ore sea rc hin g j udi ci al re view in some cas es, par ti pro ar ly tho se wher e e a er ent act ion bur den s gov sub set of a vulner abl e group. Convers el y, usi ng nm a Due Proc Cla use foc use d on ant i- sub ess ina ti on woul d produ ce m ore le nie nt ord j udi ci al re view in some cas es— the fe der al govern m ent woul d li kely not be sub j to ant i- cl ass if ic at ion re qui re m ent s. ect O N L U S I O N C C li s the cou nte rf act ual at worl d loo k doe ke in genera l? Let us ass um e, to Wh 4. Bolli ng v. Sh arpe, 3 47 U.S. 49 7 (1 95 15 4). 15 For a discussio n of the consequ ences of heightened scrutin y of f ederal racial 5. M ication rim classif llin g Alo ne , 1 04 C O L U s, see Richard A. P . L. R E V . 9 75 (20 04 ). us, Bo 15 6. In try ing to determ ine w heth er the legislature had inap pro priately discou nted the interests m of en in enacting an abort ion restriction , a court om ight also ask ho w the tradeoff betwe en life w an d l i berty com es ou t in case s w here the liberty at stake is no t that of w om en alon e. See G uid o Acco Calabresi, Anti discrimina tion an d Con stitut ion al : u n t a b i lity ( What the Bork- Foreword Brenna n Deba te Ign ores) , 1 05 H AR V . L. R E V . 8 0, 91 (19 91 ). , 4 15 See P ers. A dm ’r of Mass. v. Feeney 7. 42 U.S. 25 6 (1 97 9).

27 2011 ] -HOUSE CA SES 87 THE SLAUGHTER ake thi int er est ing, tha t the ide as of bot h Sla ught er- Hous e dis sen ts m ngs d. pre m e, tha t is , tha t ra the r tha n re adi ng the Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es vaile Assu to fun ean not hin g, the Cour t re ad it to con ta in bot h damenta l ri ghts and Cla use m ass m ic at ion . W hat cl ight h ave hap pen ed? ant i- if nte admit t a tr uly tor ic al c o u tha rf act ual ana lysis woul d have to I Again, his t wit h a dif fe re nt Sla ught er- Hous e dec is ion and the n ask n st t s i mp ly what ar o tr l de velopments it m ade m ore or le ss li kely, but al so how the pol it ic al doc ina n d sca pe woul d cha nge, inc lud ing dif fe re nce s in pre si den ti al el ect ion s a n a l d Cour se app oin tments , and how al l of tho eme cha nges woul d af fe ct the la w. Supr t tha can do tha t ana lysis —I am not sur e t anyone cou ld— and so I am foc usi ng I not doc tr ine al one . And by doi ng so, I m ay be implic it ly ass um ing on t soc ia l tha m ent s wit h views and values cl ose to m ine pre vaile d—t hat is , I m ay be ovem cr ibi doc tr ine m o r e a s I w oul d li ke it to be tha n as it woul d in fa ct have des ng . d (A Cour t det er mi n e ped to kill off ant i- sub ord ina ti on ana lysis , for develo e ta m ight have done so even if it wer , hous ed in the Due Pro ces s Cla use .) ins nce n te rms of pos si bil it ie s m ade m ore or le ss li kely, however , we can say a fe w I ngs. dec Had Sla ught er- Hous e bee n thi ide d dif fe re ntl y, equ al pro te ct ion and due tha ces ld have gone in very dif fe re nt dir ect ion s cou n the one s the y too k af te r pro s act ual dec is ion . Equa l pro te ct ion cas es cou ld be abo ut st at e fa il ure the to pro te ct , and due pro ces s ana lysis cou ld be abo ut fi ndi ng tha t li m it ed set of es in whic h cas le ti ve ass ess m ent of th e pu bli gisla nte re st was unr el ia ble . c i Some of our can oni cal cas es woul d come out t he same way, but unde r 1 5 8 1 5 9 dif Brown and L o v ing woul d not be equ al pro te ct ion fe nt cl aus es. re is ion T hey m ight be dec ide d unde r the Due Pro ces s Cla use , but m ore li kely dec s. woul be the ant i- dis cr iminat ion st ra in of the y Pri vileges o r Imm uni ti es the d pro . use he inc orp ora ti on dec is ion s, whic h woul d bab ly be m ost ly the same, Cla T 1 6 0 1 6 1 l ri ghts st ra in. Bol li n g a nd Roe woul d have the woul d be the fun damenta out comes, but the y woul d be d e c i d e d o n a due pro ces s the ory tha t was same the ut te fou r con si der a ti ons , ra tno r tha n fun damenta l ri ghts or re verse - abo foo orp ora ti on. inc some es woul d come out dif fe re ntl y. And Anti - cl ass if ic at ion obl igati ons cas 1 6 2 ent ext end ed to the fe der al gov er nm not , as the Cour t did in Adar and ; d woul be wit h Bol li ng an eas y Due Pro ces s cas e, the re woul d be no impuls e to say tha t the fe der gov er nm ent m ust fa ce the same ant i- cl ass if ic at ion scr uti ny as the st at es. al par s e impact cas es wher e bur den s fe l l o n a Dis u bse t of a vulner abl e at ple pre dis cr iminat ion bei group— per hap s the m ost not a b le exa m gnancy — ng woul sus pec t fro m a due pro ces s d be spe ct ive and woul d proba bly com e out per the o t h e r w a y. And we woul d ta ke fa il ure to pro te ct m uch m ore ser iou sl y. 1 6 3 tut pe ex e mp ti ons woul d be pre tt y cl ear ly unc ons ti ta ion al ; Desh ane y Ma l ra ri 15 Brown v. Bd. of Edu c., 3 47 8. 48 3 (1 95 4). U.S. 15 9. Loving v . V irginia, 3 88 U.S. 1 (19 67 ). 16 0. ng v. Sh arpe, 3 47 U.S. 49 7 (1 95 4). Bolli 1. Roe v. Wade, 41 0 U. S. 1 13 (19 73 ). 16 16 2. A darand Con structo rs, In c. v. P ena, 5 15 U.S. 20 0 (1 99 5). ervs 16 DeShaney v. Winnebago Cn ty . Dep’t of Soc. S 3. ., 4 89 U.S. 18 9 (1 98 9).

28 88 I ANA LAW REV I EW [V ol. 45: 61 NDI ight go oth er way; the V iol enc e Against Wo m en Act ’s Civil Rights Rem edy m the 4 1 6 good la w. ti be ight s m ll l of thi s m ean s— the payoff at fr om the al cou nte rf act ual exe rc is e— is tha t Wh con venti ona l wis dom the ut Sla ught er- Hous e is wron g in an int er est ing way. abo Overru ng Sla ught er- Hous e woul d pro bab ly not m ake a dif fe re nce now, but tha t li not s doe m ean tha t Sla ught er- Hous e cos t us not hin g. I t did not dep ri ve us of the int end ed ben e fi ts of the Pri vileges or I m m uni ti es Cla use ; tho se wer e ess ent ia l and eno ugh to for ce the ir way int o our doc tr ine thr ough oth er pie ces of obvious xt. But, in so doi ng, the y dis pla ced the te ori ginal unde rs ta ndi ngs of tho se te xts , t h ld have b e e n qui te si gnifi can cou had the y bee n giv en roo m to grow. whic W o r k- ar ound s, li ke the sub st it uti on of due pro ces s and equ al pro te ct ion f o r a pri imm uni ti es, do not bri ng u s b or c k t o the st ar ti ng poi nt, and vileges overr uli ng a m is ta ken dec is ion wil l n ot nec ess ar il y undo i ts con seq uen ces . rrison 16 See Unit ed St ates v . Mo 4. , 5 29 U.S. 59 8 (2 00 0).

Related documents