Featured Case

States Must Respect All the Constitutional Rights of Americans, Including Their Second Amendment Rights and Their Economic Liberty

McDonald v. Chicago

Contact: Timothy Sandefur

Status: Partial victory.

Summary:
This case involves more than just the right to possess firearms for personal defense. It’s actually about how the Constitution protects Americans against abuses by state governments.

Last year, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects every person’s right to possess firearms for personal protection. But that case only involved federal laws that limit gun possession. In this case, a group of Chicago residents are arguing that states are also required to respect this right. They’re challenging city ordinances that essentially bar them from possessing guns, and they are asking the Supreme Court to overrule a nineteenth century decision called the Slaughter-House Cases, which severely undermined constitutional restrictions on state governments.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution forbids states from infringing the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship—a term that included not only the rights listed in the Bill of Rights but also common law rights and natural rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence. But Slaughter-House severely restricted the applicability of this clause, leaving Americans with little meaningful protection against state laws that interfere with their constitutional rights. Although in the years that followed, the Court imposed some significant limits on state authority, it has never overruled its earlier decision. Consequently, states still have broad power to pass laws that violate the rights of Americans—and particularly their economic freedom.

In its friend of the Court brief, PLF is urging the Supreme Court to overrule the Slaughter-House Cases and restore the privileges or immunities clause to its proper role as a meaningful guarantee against the abuses of state governments. Properly understood, that clause protects not only the right to possess firearms but other important rights, including private property rights and the right to earn a living and run a business without unreasonable government interference.

On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is protected by the Due Process Clause, but refused to address the questions of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. In a separate opinon, however, Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with PLF's position that that clause should be respected and enforced as a critical protection for individual rights.  Nevertheless, the decision is good news for individual freedom.