Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    Slaughterhouse Cases

    Uploaded by

    Brianca Burris
    The Slaughterhouse Cases involved a Louisiana law that displaced butchers in New Orleans and granted a monopoly to a single slaughterhouse company. The butchers claimed this violated their 13th and 14th amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment did not protect individuals from state infringements on their rights, and defined separate concepts of national and state citizenship. The Court affirmed that the Louisiana law was valid.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Slaughterhouse Cases

    Uploaded by

    Brianca Burris
    123 views1 page
    The Slaughterhouse Cases involved a Louisiana law that displaced butchers in New Orleans and granted a monopoly to a single slaughterhouse company. The butchers claimed this violated their 13th and 14th amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment did not protect individuals from state infringements on their rights, and defined separate concepts of national and state citizenship. The Court affirmed that the Louisiana law was valid.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Slaughterhouse Cases involved a Louisiana law that displaced butchers in New Orleans and granted a monopoly to a single slaughterhouse company. The butchers claimed this violated their 13th and 14th amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment did not protect individuals from state infringements on their rights, and defined separate concepts of national and state citizenship. The Court affirmed that the Louisiana law was valid.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    123 views1 page

    Slaughterhouse Cases

    Uploaded by

    Brianca Burris
    The Slaughterhouse Cases involved a Louisiana law that displaced butchers in New Orleans and granted a monopoly to a single slaughterhouse company. The butchers claimed this violated their 13th and 14th amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment did not protect individuals from state infringements on their rights, and defined separate concepts of national and state citizenship. The Court affirmed that the Louisiana law was valid.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Slaughterhouse Cases (1872)

    Case Name: Butcher’s Benevolent Association of New Orleans v.


    Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Co.
    Majority opinion by: Justice Miller
    Facts of the case:
    The Butcher’s Benevolent Association was displaced by legislation
    passed in New Orleans in 1869. The Butcher’s Benevolent Association
    claims that this was done in violation of their 13th and 14th amendment
    rights (due process, privileges & immunities, and equal protection).
    The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Slaughterhouse Co.
    The case was then brought to the Supreme Court on a writ of error.
    Questions Presented:
    1. Does the statute violate the 14th amendment?
    2. Does the state create involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th
    amendment?
    3. Was the Butcher’s Benevolent Association’s property denied without
    due process?
    Disposition:
    The U. S. Supreme Court affirms the judgment of the Louisiana
    Supreme Court.
    Majority Reasoning:
    The Supreme Court defined two different types of citizenship and held
    that the 14th amendment affected only the rights of U. S. citizenship
    and not state citizenship. Marshall also states that the privileges and
    immunities clause doesn’t protect individuals from the state, because
    this amendment doesn’t apply to your rights as a citizen of the state.

    Thomas’ Concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago


    Concurrence by: Justice Thomas
    Reasoning:
    – Thomas believes that the other’s view of the equal protection
    clause is expanded. He instead uses the privileges and
    immunities class of the 14th amendment to reach the same
    decision.
    – He says that in the 14th amendment the words “privileges” and
    “immunities” had an established meaning as synonyms for
    “rights” during the times in which the constititution was
    constructed.
    – He believes some rights are fundamental and are to be applied
    to the State. He also thought that the privileges and immunities
    clause made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.

    You might also like