The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
In Louisiana during the period 1830-1860, disease spread from the butcheries to
the water pipes. After exhausting other options, Louisiana passed an act that
consolidated all slaughtering activity in New Orleans. This meant that they
would create a government-sanctioned company –the Crescent City
Slaughterhouse–and monopolize the butcher business in New Orleans in the
name of safety. Private butchers were forced to close their establishments and
work at Crescent City. Hundreds of butchers from the Butchers’ Benevolent
Association among neighboring organizations filed lawsuits going against the
Crescent City monopoly. These butchers argued that centralization was
unconstitutional under the Thirteenth (abolishing slavery & coerced labor) and
Fourteenth (due process) Amendment. More specifically, the butchers felt that
pursuing livelihood was a “privilege or immunity” that came with citizenship.
Breakdown Verdict.
A 5-4 ruling determined that the Crescent City corporation did not violate either
of these amendments; The majority argued that the 13th Amendment only
referred to African Slavery, and additionally that the restriction of commerce
was not deprivation of property. Moreover, they remarked that butchers could
earn a salary by working for Crescent City, and therefore no unconstitutional
activity was occurring. Finally, Justice Samuel Miller rejected the “privilege or
immunity” statement by the butchers, enforcing that the clause protects
citizenship at the national level, not the state level of smaller rights. One
statement of a dissenting justice was that the 14th Amendment should not have
been limited to protecting slaves, and that it should apply to the common law
itself.
Result Going Forward.
The Slaughterhouse Cases took away a lot of power from the “Privileges or
Immunities” clause, which meant that it could not protect individuals from
state regulation. This means that federal power was restricted and was, in a way,
separated from state rights. During civil rights trials, lawyers would now utilize
the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses to justify new freedoms, since the
Privileges and Immunities Clause was settled in this case.
Do you agree with the verdict?
100%
0%