Corfield v. Coryell (1823) - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Corfield v. Coryell to Corfield v. Coryell (1823)

2019-10-18T08:55:13Z

Admin moved page Corfield v. Coryell to Corfield v. Coryell (1823)

Admin at 04:43, 8 August 2018

2018-08-08T04:43:43Z

Admin at 04:43, 8 August 2018

2018-08-08T04:43:11Z

Morgannoel18 at 08:11, 22 October 2017

2017-10-22T08:11:22Z

Nicole: Created page with "Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution provides, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several stat..."

2017-01-24T15:33:55Z

Created page with "Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution provides, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several stat..."

New page

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution provides, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states,” a provision sometimes known as the interstate Privilege and Immunities Clause. ''Corfield v. Coryell'' (1823) was apparently the first and remains a leading federal case interpreting this clause. ''Corfield'' was not a Supreme Court case, but was decided by Justice Bushrod Washington serving as Circuit Court judge. The case involved a New Jersey law limiting the gathering of oysters within the state to “actual inhabitants or residents of the state.” The law was challenged as discriminating against citizens of other states and thus as in violation of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. The question implicit in the case was whether that constitutional provision prohibited states from all discrimination between their own citizens and citizens of other states of the union, or merely prohibited discrimination over a narrower range of rights. Justice Washington concluded the law was constitutional, for Article IV, Section 2, protects only “those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.” The right to gather oysters, he concluded, was not among these fundamental rights.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
David S. Bogern, ''Privileges and Immunities'' (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003).
|}

==== Michael Zuckert ====

SEE ALSO: [[Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]]; [[Toomer v. Witsell]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:43, 8 August 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the [[U.S. Constitution\|Constitution]] provides, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states,” a provision sometimes known as the interstate Privilege and Immunities Clause. ''Corfield v. Coryell'' (1823) was apparently the first and remains a leading federal case interpreting this clause. ''Corfield'' was not a [[Supreme Court of the United States\|Supreme Court]] case, but was decided by Justice Bushrod Washington serving as Circuit Court judge. The case involved a New Jersey law limiting the gathering of oysters within the state to “actual inhabitants or residents of the state.” The law was challenged as discriminating against citizens of other states and thus as in violation of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. The question implicit in the case was whether that constitutional provision prohibited states from all discrimination between their own citizens and citizens of other states of the union, or merely prohibited discrimination over a narrower range of rights. Justice Washington concluded the law was constitutional, for Article IV, Section 2, protects only “those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.” The right to gather oysters, he concluded, was not among these fundamental rights.	+	Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the [[U.S. Constitution\|Constitution]] provides, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states,” a provision sometimes known as the interstate [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV\|Privilege and Immunities Clause]]. ''Corfield v. Coryell'' (1823) was apparently the first and remains a leading federal case interpreting this clause. ''Corfield'' was not a [[Supreme Court of the United States\|Supreme Court]] case, but was decided by Justice Bushrod Washington serving as Circuit Court judge. The case involved a New Jersey law limiting the gathering of oysters within the state to “actual inhabitants or residents of the state.” The law was challenged as discriminating against citizens of other states and thus as in violation of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. The question implicit in the case was whether that constitutional provision prohibited states from all discrimination between their own citizens and citizens of other states of the union, or merely prohibited discrimination over a narrower range of rights. Justice Washington concluded the law was constitutional, for Article IV, Section 2, protects only “those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.” The right to gather oysters, he concluded, was not among these fundamental rights.

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:43, 8 August 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution provides, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states,” a provision sometimes known as the interstate Privilege and Immunities Clause. ''Corfield v. Coryell'' (1823) was apparently the first and remains a leading federal case interpreting this clause. ''Corfield'' was not a Supreme Court case, but was decided by Justice Bushrod Washington serving as Circuit Court judge. The case involved a New Jersey law limiting the gathering of oysters within the state to “actual inhabitants or residents of the state.” The law was challenged as discriminating against citizens of other states and thus as in violation of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. The question implicit in the case was whether that constitutional provision prohibited states from all discrimination between their own citizens and citizens of other states of the union, or merely prohibited discrimination over a narrower range of rights. Justice Washington concluded the law was constitutional, for Article IV, Section 2, protects only “those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.” The right to gather oysters, he concluded, was not among these fundamental rights.	+	Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, of the [[U.S. Constitution\|Constitution]] provides, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several states,” a provision sometimes known as the interstate Privilege and Immunities Clause. ''Corfield v. Coryell'' (1823) was apparently the first and remains a leading federal case interpreting this clause. ''Corfield'' was not a [[Supreme Court of the United States\|Supreme Court]] case, but was decided by Justice Bushrod Washington serving as Circuit Court judge. The case involved a New Jersey law limiting the gathering of oysters within the state to “actual inhabitants or residents of the state.” The law was challenged as discriminating against citizens of other states and thus as in violation of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. The question implicit in the case was whether that constitutional provision prohibited states from all discrimination between their own citizens and citizens of other states of the union, or merely prohibited discrimination over a narrower range of rights. Justice Washington concluded the law was constitutional, for Article IV, Section 2, protects only “those privileges and immunities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign.” The right to gather oysters, he concluded, was not among these fundamental rights.

	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:11, 22 October 2017
Line 8:		Line 8:

	==== Michael Zuckert ====		==== Michael Zuckert ====
		+
		+	Last updated: 2006

	SEE ALSO: [[Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]]; [[Toomer v. Witsell]]		SEE ALSO: [[Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission]]; [[Privileges and Immunities Clause: Article IV]]; [[Toomer v. Witsell]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 08:55, 18 October 2019
(No difference)