Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1 — Valid Residency Distinctions Under Privileges And Immunities Clause

prev | next

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Universal practice has established a political exception to the Privilege and Immunities Clause. A state may thus “require residence within its limits for a given time before a citizen of another State who becomes a resident thereof shall exercise the right of suffrage or become eligible to office.” [1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-1/valid-residency-distinctions-under-privileges-and-immunities-clause#fn1art4 " Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 256 (1898). As to voting rights, see Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972), but not as to candidacy, this exception is qualified by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’n of Mont., 436 U.S. 371, 383 (1978) (citing Kanapaux v. Ellisor, 419 U.S. 891 (1974); Chimento v. Stark, 353 F. Supp. 1211 (D.N.H. 1973), aff’d, 414 U.S. 802 (1973)). ")

In addition, purely private and personal rights are not in all cases beyond the reach of state legislation that differentiates between citizens and noncitizens. Broadly speaking, these rights may be reasonably regulated by a state under its police power. The Court has recognized cases in which a state may reasonably resort to discrimination against nonresidents in aid of its own public health, safety, and welfare. For example, a state may reserve the right to sell insurance to persons who have resided within the state for a prescribed period.[2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-1/valid-residency-distinctions-under-privileges-and-immunities-clause#fn2art4 " La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465 (1919). ") A state may also require a nonresident who does business within the state[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-1/valid-residency-distinctions-under-privileges-and-immunities-clause#fn3art4 " Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 294 U.S. 623 (1935). ") or who uses the state’s highways[4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-1/valid-residency-distinctions-under-privileges-and-immunities-clause#fn4art4 " Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 356 (1927). ") to consent, expressly or by implication, to service of process on an agent within the state. A state may also limit a nonresident’s dower rights[5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-1/valid-residency-distinctions-under-privileges-and-immunities-clause#fn5art4 " Ferry v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry., 258 U.S. 314 (1922); accord Ferry v. Corbett, 258 U.S. 609 (1922). ") or may treat the community property rights of nonresident married persons as governed by the laws of their domicile, rather than by the laws it promulgates for its own residents.[6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-1/valid-residency-distinctions-under-privileges-and-immunities-clause#fn6art4 " Conner v. Elliott, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 591, 593 (1856). ")

Footnotes

1

Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239 , 256 (1898). As to voting rights, see Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) , but not as to candidacy, this exception is qualified by the Fourteenth Amendment ’s Equal Protection Clause. Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’n of Mont., 436 U.S. 371 , 383 (1978) (citing Kanapaux v. Ellisor, 419 U.S. 891 (1974) ; Chimento v. Stark, 353 F. Supp. 1211 (D.N.H. 1973), aff’d, 414 U.S. 802 (1973) ).

2

La Tourette v. McMaster, 248 U.S. 465 (1919) .

3

Doherty & Co. v. Goodman, 294 U.S. 623 (1935) .

4

Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 , 356 (1927).

5

Ferry v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry., 258 U.S. 314 (1922) ; accord Ferry v. Corbett, 258 U.S. 609 (1922) .

6

Conner v. Elliott, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 591 , 593 (1856).