United States v. Wheeler (1920)

Last updated

United States v. Wheeler
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 28, 1920
Decided December 13, 1920
Full case nameUnited States v. Wheeler, et al.
Citations254 U.S. 281 ( more )
41 S. Ct. 133; 65 L. Ed. 270; 1920 U.S. LEXIS 1159
Case history
PriorDemurrer sustained, United States v. Wheeler, 254 F. 611 (D. Ariz. 1918).
Holding
The Constitution grants to states, not the federal government, the power to prosecute individuals for wrongful interference with the right to travel.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Edward D. White
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna  · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day  · Willis Van Devanter
Mahlon Pitney  · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis  · John H. Clarke
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by McKenna, Holmes, Day, Van Devanter, Pitney, McReynolds, Brandeis
DissentClarke
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. IV, §2; §19 of the Criminal Code

United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), was an 8-to-1 landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that held that the Constitution alone does not grant the federal government the power to prosecute kidnappers, even if moving abductees across state lines on federally-regulated railroads at the behest of local law enforcement officials, and only the states have the authority to punish a private citizen's unlawful violation of another's freedom of movement. [1] The case was a landmark interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, [2] [3] and contains a classic legal statement of the right to travel which continues to undergird American jurisprudence. [4] [5]

Contents

Background

On June 26, 1917, Local 800 of the Industrial Workers of the World (or IWW, a labor union), struck the Phelps Dodge Corporation and other mining companies in the town of Bisbee, Arizona. Nearly 3,000 miners (about 38% of the town's total population) walked out. The strike was a peaceful one. However, Walter S. Douglas, the president of Phelps Dodge, was determined to break the strike. [6] [7] [8] [9]

On July 11, Douglas and other Phelps Dodge corporate executives met with Cochise County Sheriff Harry C. Wheeler to conspire to seize, by force of arms, all the striking workers, forcibly transport (deport) them several hundred miles away from Bisbee, and abandon them in another desert town without food, clothing or funds. To this end, Sheriff Wheeler recruited and deputized 2,200 men from Bisbee and the nearby town of Douglas to act as a posse. Phelps Dodge officials also met with executives of the El Paso and Southwestern Railroad, who agreed to provide rail transportation for any deportees. Phelps Dodge and the other employers provided Sheriff Wheeler with a list of all the men on strike, as well as suspected IWW sympathizers. [6] [7] [8] [9]

At 6:30 a.m. on the morning of July 12, the 2,200 deputies moved through town and arrested every man on their list as well as any man who refused to work in the mines. About 2,000 men were seized and taken by armed guards to a baseball stadium two miles away. Several hundred men were freed after being permitted to denounce the IWW. At 11:00 a.m., 23 cattle cars belonging to the El Paso and Southwestern Railroad arrived in Bisbee, and the remaining 1,286 arrestees were forced at gunpoint to board the train. The detainees were transported 200 miles (320 km) for 16 h through the desert without food or water. They were unloaded in the Tres Hermanas mountain range in Luna County, New Mexico without money or transportation at 3:00 a.m. on July 13 and told not to return to Bisbee or they would suffer physical harm. [6] [7] [8] [9]

The Luna County sheriff and New Mexico Governor Washington E. Lindsey contacted President Woodrow Wilson for assistance. Wilson ordered US Army troops to escort the men to Columbus, New Mexico. The deportees were housed in tents meant for Mexican refugees who had fled across the border to escape the Army's Pancho Villa Expedition. The men were allowed to stay in the camp until September 17, 1917. [6] [7] [8] [9]

Sheriff Wheeler established armed guards at all entrances to Bisbee and Douglas. Any citizen seeking to exit or enter the town over the next several months had to have a "passport" issued by Wheeler. Any adult male in town who was not known to the sheriff's men was brought before a secret sheriff's kangaroo court. Hundreds of citizens were tried, and most of them deported and threatened with lynching if they returned. [6] [7] [8] [9]

The deported citizens of Bisbee pleaded with President Wilson for law enforcement assistance in returning to their homes. In October 1917, Wilson appointed a commission of five individuals, led by Secretary of Labor William B. Wilson (with assistance from Assistant Secretary of Labor Felix Frankfurter), to investigate labor disputes in Arizona. The commission heard testimony during the first five days of November 1917. [6] [7] [8] [9] In its final report, issued on November 6, 1917, the commission declared the deportations "wholly illegal and without authority in law, either State or Federal." [10]

On May 15, 1918, the U.S. Department of Justice ordered the arrest of 21 mining company executives and several Bisbee and Cochise County elected leaders and law enforcement officers. [6] [7] [8] [9] The indictment contained four counts. Three counts alleged conspiracy to violate §19 of the United States Criminal Code. A fourth count was dropped before trial. [1] The indictments did not reference any federal law as there was no law in existence at the time made kidnapping (or abduction, felonious or unlawful restraint, or felonious or unlawful imprisonment) a crime. Thus, the government was forced to rely on a dubious claim of an implied federal power in order to prosecute Wheeler and the others. [7]

The defense, led by a Phelps Dodge corporate attorney (provided pro bono), [7] filed a pre-trial motion in a federal district court to release the 21 men on the grounds that no federal laws had been violated. In Wheeler v. United States, 254 Fed. Rep. 611 (1919), the district court threw out the indictments on the grounds that, absent specific statutory authorization, the Constitution did not grant the United States the authority to punish the alleged illegal acts. [11]

The Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. W. C. Herron, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney and brother-in-law of former President William Howard Taft, argued the case for the United States. Former Associate Justice and future Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes led the team which argued the case for Phelps Dodge. [1]

Decision

Chief Justice Edward Douglass White wrote the opinion for the 8–1 majority, in which the judgment of the district court was affirmed. Associate Justice John Hessin Clarke dissented, but wrote no opinion.

White opened the majority's decision by reviewing at length the four indictments and briefly describing the ruling of the federal district court. Then, in a section widely quoted in American jurisprudence for the next century, [4] [5] White described the fundamental right which was at issue:

In all the States from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the States to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right. [12]

White next outlined the history of the "privileges and immunities" clause of Article IV, Sec. 2, of the Constitution. In the space of less than one sentence, White came to the landmark [2] [3] conclusion that only the states had enforcement authority over the "privileges and immunities" mentioned in Article IV. The "privileges and immunity" clause, White wrote, was a linear descendant of a similar if limited clause in the Articles of Confederation. "[The] Constitution plainly intended to preserve and enforce the limitation..." White reasoned, and thus "the continued possession by the States of the reserved power to deal with free residence, ingress and egress, cannot be denied." [13]

The principle of comity enshrined in Art. IV, Sec. 2, is one of the most fundamental principles in the Constitution, White claimed. It was, he asserted, the very basis for the Union. The right encompassed not only travel between the separate states but also movement within a state, but while the Constitution fused these two rights into one, it reserved exclusively to the states the power to enforce these rights, except when a state violated the rule of comity. [14]

Relying exclusively on the Slaughter-House Cases, [15] and United States v. Harris, [16] White noted that Art. IV, Sec. 2, may be invoked solely when a state actor is involved. White distinguished Crandall v. Nevada, [17] by noting that that decision had involved state action. [18]

Aftermath

In United States v. Wheeler, the majority never discussed whether Sheriff Wheeler had acted in his capacity as a state actor. It remains unclear whether the government even raised the issue at trial or on appeal. [19]

United States v. Wheeler identified a major omission in federal criminal law (the lack of a federal kidnapping statute), but it would take a major national tragedy to rectify the problem. In most common law jurisdictions, kidnapping [20] had been outlawed by the courts, not by statute, but the Supreme Court had held in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin that the Constitution prohibited common law crimes. [21] It was only after the Lindbergh kidnapping in 1932, which ended in the death of 21-month-old Charles Lindbergh, Jr., that Congress passed the Federal Kidnapping Act, which prohibited kidnapping. [22]

Several of the deported citizens brought civil actions against Wheeler, Douglas and the others. But in State v. Wootton, Crim. No. 2685 (Cochise County, Ariz. September 13, 1919), a jury refused to find in favor of the complainants and give them relief. Defendant Wootton argued that the IWW members were such a threat to public safety that necessity demanded their removal. The jury agreed, making this one of the rare times in American law in which the necessity defense was successfully used. After this failure at law, nearly all the remaining civil suits were dropped (although a handful were settled for small sums of money). [6] [7] [8] [23] [24]

Few, if any, of the deported citizens ever returned to Bisbee. [7]

Assessment

United States v. Wheeler did not have a direct major impact on American constitutional law. The case was only one of a long line of decisions which extended as far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, [25] and included the Supreme Court decisions in Paul v. Virginia, [26] Ward v. Maryland, [27] the Slaughter-House Cases [15] and United States v. Harris . [16] All the decisions rejected federal protection of important constitutional rights. Still, although Wheeler stood firmly in the middle of an established stream of constitutional law, the Supreme Court itself began rejecting the rationales contained in Wheeler a few years later.

Finally, in United States v. Guest, [28] the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White's conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement. [5] [29]

Indirectly, however, United States v. Wheeler had a much larger impact. For many years, the roots of the Constitution's "privileges and immunities" clause had not been clearly determined. [4] In 1823, the circuit court in Corfield had provided a list of the rights (some fundamental, some not) that the clause could cover. [30] [31] The Wheeler court dramatically changed this. By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental. [3]

The right to travel and what that implies

Among the rights specifically mentioned in United States v. Wheeler is the right to travel. The right to travel had been mentioned in Corfield and recognized as a fundamental right. But the Wheeler court was the first to locate the right in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection. [32] Chief Justice White's statement of the right to travel (quoted above) is frequently cited by courts even in the early 21st century and remains the classic formulation of the right to travel. [33] [34] [35]

The Supreme Court's rejection of Wheeler's state actor rationale but acceptance of its strong defense of the right to travel led to a number of additional court decisions and the establishment of a new constitutional test. In Kent v. Dulles, [36] the Court held that the federal government may not restrict the right to travel without due process. Six years later in Aptheker v. Secretary of State (1964), the Court struck down a federal ban restricting travel by communists. [37] But the court struggled to find a way to protect legitimate government interests (such as national security) in light of these decisions. Just a year after Aptheker, the Supreme Court fashioned the rational relationship test for constitutionality in Zemel v. Rusk , [38] as a way of reconciling the rights of the individual with the interests of the state. [39]

The Wheeler Court's establishment of a strong constitutional right to travel has also had far-reaching and unintended effects. For example, the Supreme Court overturned state prohibitions on welfare payments to individuals who had not resided within the jurisdiction for at least one year as an impermissible burden on the right to travel. [40] The Court has used Wheeler to strike down one-year residency requirements for voting in state elections, [41] one-year waiting periods before receiving state-provided medical care, [42] civil service preferences for state veterans, [43] and higher fishing and hunting license fees for out-of-state residents. [44] [39] [45] [46]

The Wheeler decision may yet have even farther-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that freedom of movement is closely related to freedom of association and to freedom of expression. Strong constitutional protection for the right to travel may have significant implications for state attempts to limit abortion rights, ban or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, and enact anti-crime or consumer protection laws. Wheeler may even undermine current Court-fashioned concepts of federalism. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  2. 1 2 Berger, Raoul. "New Deal Symposium: The Activist Legacy of the New Deal Court." Washington Law Review. 59 Wash. L. Rev. 751 (September 1984).
  3. 1 2 3 Nelson, William E. The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988. ISBN   0-674-31625-8
  4. 1 2 3 Bogen, David Skillen. Privileges and Immunities: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Westport, Ct.: Praeger Press, 2003. ISBN   0-313-31347-4
  5. 1 2 3 "Note: Membership Has Its Privileges and Immunities: Congressional Power to Define and Enforce the Rights of National Citizenship." Harvard Law Review. 102:1925 (June 1989).
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Foner, Philip S. History of the Labor Movement in the United States. Vol. 7: Labor and World War I, 1914–1918. New York: International Publishers, 1987. Cloth ISBN   0-7178-0638-3; Paperback ISBN   0-7178-0627-8
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Dubofsky, Melvyn. We Shall Be All: A History of the Industrial Workers of the World. Abridged ed. Champaign, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 2000. ISBN   0-252-06905-6
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Byrkit, James. "The Bisbee Deportation." In American Labor in the Southwest. James C. Foster, ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1982. ISBN   0-8165-0741-4
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jensen, Vernon H. Heritage of Conflict: Labor Relations in the Nonferrous Metals Industry up to 1930. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1950.
  10. ↑ Report on the Bisbee Deportations. Made by the President's Mediation Commission to the President of the United States. Bisbee, Arizona. November 6, 1917.
  11. ↑ Wheeler v. United States, 254 Fed. Rep. 611 (1919).
  12. ↑ United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, citing Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823) and Slaughter-House Cases , 83 U.S. (16 Wall. ) 36 (1873).
  13. ↑ Wheeler, 254 U.S. at 282, citing Paul v. Virginia , 75 U.S. (8 Wall. ) 168 (1869).
  14. ↑ Wheeler, 254 U.S. at 283.
  15. 1 2 Slaughter-House Cases , 83 U.S. (16 Wall. ) 36 (1873).
  16. 1 2 United States v. Harris , 106 U.S. 629 (1883)
  17. ↑ Crandall v. Nevada , 73 U.S. (6 Wall. ) 35 (1868).
  18. ↑ Wheeler, 254 U.S. at 283-284.
  19. ↑ Pratt, Walter F. The Supreme Court Under Edward Douglass White, 1910–1921. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1999. ISBN   1-57003-309-9
  20. ↑ Kidnapping includes abduction, felonious or unlawful imprisonment, and felonious or unlawful restraint.
  21. ↑ United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812).
  22. ↑ Lippman, Matthew R. Contemporary Criminal Law: Concepts, Cases, and Controversies. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 2006. ISBN   1-4129-0580-X
  23. ↑ "Comment: The Law of Necessity as Applied in the Bisbee Deportation Case." Arizona Law Review. 3:264 (1961).
  24. ↑ Greenawalt, Kent. Conflicts of Law and Morality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. ISBN   0-19-505824-0
  25. ↑ Corfield v. Coryell ,6Fed. Cas.546(1823).
  26. ↑ Paul v. Virginia , 75 U.S. (8 Wall. ) 168 (1869).
  27. ↑ Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. (12 Wall. ) 418 (1871).
  28. ↑ United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 759 n.16 (1966).
  29. ↑ Duster, Michael J. "Criminal Justice System Reform Symposium: Note: Out of Sight, Out of Mind: State Attempts to Banish Sex Offenders." Drake Law Review. 53:711 (Spring 2005).
  30. ↑ Wadley, James B. "Indian Citizenship and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the United States Constitution: An Alternative to the Problems of the Full Faith and Credit and Comity?" Southern Illinois University Law Journal. 31:31 (Fall 2006).
  31. ↑ Dunlap, Frank L. "Constitutional Law: Power of States to Prevent Entry of Paupers from Other States." California Law Review. 26:5 (July 1938).
  32. ↑ Foscarinis, Maria. "Downward Spiral: Homelessness and Its Criminalization." Yale Law & Policy Review. 14:1 (1996).
  33. ↑ Siebert, Kevin C. "Note: Nocturnal Juvenile Curfew Ordinances: The Fifth Circuit 'Narrowly Tailors' A Dallas Ordinance, But Will Similar Ordinances Encounter the Same Interpretation?" Washington University Law Quarterly. 73:1711 (1995).
  34. ↑ Conner, Toni L. "Juvenile Curfews: Political Pandering at the Expense of a Fundamental Right." West Virginia Law Review. 109:459 (Winter 2007).
  35. ↑ Trollinger, Tona. "The Juvenile Curfew: Unconstitutional Imprisonment." William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 4:949 (Summer 1996).
  36. ↑ Kent v. Dulles , 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
  37. ↑ Aptheker v. Secretary of State , 378 U.S. 500 (1964).
  38. ↑ Zemel v. Rusk , 381 U.S. 1 (1965).
  39. 1 2 Mode, Gregory J. "Comment: Wisconsin, A Constitutional Right to Intrastate Travel, and Anti-Cruising Ordinances." Marquette Law Review. 78:735 (Spring 1995).
  40. ↑ Shapiro v. Thompson , 394 U.S. 618 (1969).
  41. ↑ Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972).
  42. ↑ Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974).
  43. ↑ Attorney Gen. of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986).
  44. ↑ Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978).
  45. ↑ Porter, Andrew C. "Comment: Toward a Constitutional Analysis of the Right to Intrastate Travel." Northwestern University Law Review. 86:820 (1992).
  46. ↑ Zubler, Todd. "The Right to Migrate and Welfare Reform: Time for Shapiro v. Thompson to Take A Hike." Valparaiso University Law Review. 31:893 (Summer 1997).
  47. ↑ Simon, Harry. "Towns Without Pity: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis of Official Efforts to Drive Homeless Persons From American Cities." Tulane Law Review . 66:631 (March 1992).
  48. ↑ Kreimer, Seth F. "The Law of Choice and Choice of Law: Abortion, the Right to Travel, and Extraterritorial Regulation in American Federalism." New York University Law Review. 67:451 (June 1992).
  49. ↑ Rosen, Mark D. "Extraterritoriality and Political Heterogeneity in American Federalism." University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 150:855 (January 2002).
  50. ↑ Kreimer, Seth F. "Territoriality and Moral Dissensus: Thoughts on Abortion, Slavery, Gay Marriage and Family Values." Bridgeport Law Review/Quinnipiac Law Review. 16:161 (Spring/Summer 1996).
  51. ↑ Hemmens, Craig and Bennett, Katherine. "Out in the Street: Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Curfews, and the Constitution." Gonzaga Law Review. 34:267 (1998/1999).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Four of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding states

Article Four of the United States Constitution outlines the relationship between the various states, as well as the relationship between each state and the United States federal government. It also empowers Congress to admit new states and administer the territories and other federal lands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Loving v. Virginia (1967) regarding interracial marriage, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal U.S. citizenship, not those that pertain to state citizenship. Though the decision in the Slaughter-House Cases minimized the impact of the Privileges or Immunities Clause on state law, the Supreme Court would later incorporate the Bill of Rights to strike down state laws on the basis of other clauses. In 2010, the Court rejected arguments in McDonald v. Chicago to overrule the established precedent of Slaughterhouse and decided instead to incorporate the Second Amendment via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the states of Oregon, Texas, Arizona, and Idaho challenged the constitutionality of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) Amendments of 1970 passed by the 91st United States Congress, and where John Mitchell was the respondent in his role as United States Attorney General. The Supreme Court ruled that the literacy test ban under Section 201, the minimum residency duration requirement for voter registration and the uniform rule for absentee voting in presidential elections under Section 202, and that Congress lowering the voting age in federal elections from 21 to 18 under Section 302 were all constitutional, but that Congress lowering the voting age in state and local elections from 21 to 18 under Section 302 was unconstitutional.

In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments. However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868.

Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case that solidified the narrow reading of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and determined that the right to practice a profession was not among these privileges. Brought by Myra Bradwell, the case is also notable for being an early 14th Amendment challenge to sex discrimination in the United States.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. Along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, this clause became part of the Constitution on July 9, 1868.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel is associated with the clause.

<i>Corfield v. Coryell</i> Landmark U.S. federal court case

Corfield v. Coryell was a landmark decision decided by Justice Bushrod Washington, sitting as a judge for the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In it, he upheld a New Jersey regulation forbidding non-residents from gathering oysters and clams against a challenge that New Jersey's law violated the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause and that the New Jersey law regulated interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.

Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States discussed whether there is a constitutional right to travel from one state to another. The case was a reaffirmation of the principle that citizens select states and not the other way round.

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution. The clause states that "The Senators and Representatives" of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bisbee Deportation</span> 1917 illegal deportation of miners attempting unionization in Arizona, United States

The Bisbee Deportation was the illegal kidnapping and deportation of about 1,300 striking mine workers, their supporters, and citizen bystanders by 2,000 members of a deputized posse, who arrested them beginning on July 12, 1917, in Bisbee, Arizona. The action was orchestrated by Phelps Dodge, the major mining company in the area, which provided lists of workers and others who were to be arrested to the Cochise County sheriff, Harry C. Wheeler. Those arrested were taken to a local baseball park before being loaded onto cattle cars and deported 200 miles (320 km) to Tres Hermanas in New Mexico. The 16-hour journey was through desert without food and with little water. Once unloaded, the deportees, most without money or transportation, were warned against returning to Bisbee. The US government soon brought in members of the US Army to assist with relocating the deportees to Columbus, New Mexico.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry C. Wheeler</span> American lawman (1875–1925)

Harry Cornwall Wheeler was an Arizona lawman who was the third captain of the Arizona Rangers, as well as the sheriff of Cochise County, serving from 1912 into 1918. He is known as the lead figure in the illegal mass kidnapping and deportation of some 1200 miners and family members, many of them immigrants, from Bisbee, Arizona to New Mexico in 1917. Beginning on July 12, 1917, he took total control of the town of Bisbee, controlling access and running kangaroo courts that deported numerous people.

Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Since the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).

The constitutional law of the United States is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. The ultimate authority upon the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality of statutes, state and federal, lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.

Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900), is a United States Supreme Court decision which addressed two questions relating to the Due Process Clause. First, whether Utah's practice of allowing prosecutors to directly file criminal charges without a grand jury were consistent with due process, and second, whether Utah's use of eight jurors instead of twelve in "courts of general jurisdiction" were constitutional.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.