|
|
Supreme Court of N.H. v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Supreme Court of N.H. v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985)
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper No. 83-1466 Argued October 31, 1984 Decided March 4, 1985 470 U.S. 274
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Appellee, a resident of Vermont, was allowed to take, and passed, the New Hampshire bar examination. But pursuant to Rule 42 of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which limits bar admission to state residents, she was not permitted to be sworn in. After the New Hampshire Supreme Court denied appellee’s request that an exception to the Rule be made in her case, she filed an action in Federal District Court, alleging that Rule 42 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, of the United States Constitution. The District Court agreed, and granted appellee’s motion for a summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: Rule 42 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2. Pp. 279-288.
(a) Derived, like the Commerce Clause, from the fourth of the Articles of Confederation, the Privileges and Immunities Clause was intended to create a national economic union.
[O]ne of the privileges which the Clause guarantees to citizens of State A is that of doing business in State B on terms of substantial equality with the citizens of that State.
Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 396. Moreover, although a lawyer is "an officer of the court," he does not hold a position that can be entrusted only to a "full-fledged member of the political community" and thus is not an "officer" of the State in any political sense. In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717. Therefore, a nonresident’s interest in practicing law is a "privilege" protected by the Clause. Pp. 279-283.
(b) A State may discriminate against nonresidents only where its reasons are "substantial" and the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relationship to those reasons. None of the reasons offered by appellant for its refusal to admit nonresidents to the bar -- nonresidents would be less likely to keep abreast of local rules and procedures, to behave ethically, to be available for court proceedings, and to do pro bono and other volunteer work in the State -- meets the test of "substantiality," and the means chosen do not bear the necessary relationship to the State’s objectives. Pp. 284-287.
723 F.2d 110, affirmed.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 288. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 289.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Supreme Court of N.H. v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) in 470 U.S. 274 470 U.S. 275. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=BKN99MXVEXS1PZW.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Supreme Court of N.H. v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985), in 470 U.S. 274, page 470 U.S. 275. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=BKN99MXVEXS1PZW.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Supreme Court of N.H. v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985). cited in 1985, 470 U.S. 274, pp.470 U.S. 275. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=BKN99MXVEXS1PZW.
|