Slaughter-House Cases

1873 United States Supreme Court case

Slaughter-House Cases

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued January 11, 1872
Reargued February 3–5, 1873
Decided April 14, 1873
Full case name| The Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company;
Paul Esteben, L. Ruch, J. P. Rouede, W. Maylie, S. Firmberg, B. Beaubay, William Fagan, J. D. Broderick, N. Seibel, M. Lannes, J. Gitzinger, J. P. Aycock, D. Verges, The Live-Stock Dealers' and Butchers' Association of New Orleans, and Charles Cavaroc v. The State of Louisiana, ex rel. S. Belden, Attorney-General;
The Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company
Citations| 83 U.S. 36 (more)

16 Wall. 36; 21 L. Ed. 394; 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1139

Case history
Prior| Error to the Supreme Court of Louisiana
Holding
The Fourteenth Amendment only protects the privileges and immunities pertaining to citizenship of the United States, not those that pertain to state citizenship.
Court membership

Chief Justice
Salmon P. Chase
Associate Justices
Nathan Clifford * Noah H. Swayne
Samuel F. Miller * David Davis
Stephen J. Field * William Strong
Joseph P. Bradley * Ward Hunt
Case opinions
Majority| Miller, joined by Clifford, Davis, Strong, Hunt
Dissent| Field, joined by Chase, Swayne, Bradley
Dissent| Swayne
Dissent| Bradley
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. IV. sec. 2, 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments

The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 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.

Ostensibly seeking to improve sanitary conditions, the Louisiana legislature and the city of New Orleans had established a corporation charged with regulating the slaughterhouse industry. Members of the Butchers' Benevolent Association challenged the constitutionality of the corporation's monopoly, claiming that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment had been ratified in the aftermath of the American Civil War with the primary intention of protecting civil rights of millions of newly emancipated freedmen in the Southern United States, but the butchers argued that the amendment protected their right to "sustain their lives through labor".

In the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, the Court held to a narrower interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment than the plaintiffs urged, ruling that it did not restrict the police powers exercised by Louisiana because the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected only those rights guaranteed by the United States, not individual states. In effect, the clause was interpreted to convey limited protection pertinent to a small minority of rights, such as the right to seek federal office.

In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Stephen J. Field wrote that Miller's opinion effectively rendered the Fourteenth Amendment a "vain and idle enactment".

## Background

[edit]

Matthew H. Carpenter, the lawyer who argued for Louisiana

John Archibald Campbell, the lawyer who argued for the butchers

One writer described New Orleans in the mid-nineteenth century as plagued by "intestines and portions of putrefied animal matter lodged [around the drinking pipes]" whenever the tide from the Mississippi River was low; the offal came from the city's slaughterhouses.[1] A mile and a half upstream from the city, 1,000 butchers gutted more than 300,000 animals per year.[1] Animal entrails (known as offal), dung, blood, and urine contaminated New Orleans's drinking water, which was implicated in cholera and yellow fever outbreaks among the population.[1]

To try to control the problem, a New Orleans grand jury recommended that the slaughterhouses be moved south, but since many of the slaughterhouses were outside city limits, the grand jury's recommendations carried no weight. The city appealed to the state legislature. As a result, in 1869, the Louisiana legislature passed "An Act to Protect the Health of the City of New Orleans, to Locate the Stock Landings and Slaughter Houses, and to incorporate the Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughter-House Company", which allowed the city of New Orleans to create a corporation that centralized all slaughterhouse operations in the city.[2] At the time, New York City, San Francisco, Boston, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia had similar provisions to confine butchers' establishments to particular areas in order to keep offal from contaminating the water supply.[3]

The legislature chartered a private corporation, the Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company, to run a Grand Slaughterhouse at the southern part of the city, opposite the Mississippi River.[2] Crescent City would not slaughter beef itself but act as a franchise corporation, by renting out space to other butchers in the city for a fee, under a designated maximum.

The statute also granted "sole and exclusive privilege of conducting and carrying on the livestock landing and slaughterhouse business within the limits and privilege granted by the act, and that all such animals shall be landed at the stock landings and slaughtered at the slaughterhouses of the company, and nowhere else. Penalties are enacted for infractions of this provision, and prices fixed for the maximum charges of the company for each steamboat and for each animal landed".[2] The exclusivity would last for a period of 25 years. All other slaughterhouses would be closed up, forcing butchers to slaughter within the operation set up by Crescent City. The statute forbade Crescent City from favoring one butcher over another by promising harsh penalties for refusal to sell space to any butcher. All animals on the premises would be inspected by an officer appointed by the governor of the state.

Over 400 members of the Butchers' Benevolent Association joined to sue to stop Crescent City's takeover of the slaughterhouse industry.[1] In the background of his majority opinion,[2] Supreme Court Justice Samuel Freeman Miller reiterated the concerns of the butchers:

> This statute is denounced [by the butchers] not only as creating a monopoly and conferring odious and exclusive privileges upon a small number of persons at the expense of the great body of the community of New Orleans, but it is asserted that it deprives a large and meritorious class of citizens—the whole of the butchers of the city—of the right to exercise their trade, the business to which they have been trained and on which they depend for the support of themselves and their families, and that the unrestricted exercise of the business of butchering is necessary to the daily subsistence of the population of the city.

The lower courts had found in favor of Crescent City in all cases.

Six cases were appealed to the Supreme Court. The butchers based their claims on the due process, privileges or immunities, and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been ratified by the states five years earlier. It had been passed with the intention of protecting the civil rights of the millions of newly emancipated freedmen in the South, who had been granted citizenship in the United States.

The butchers' attorney, former Supreme Court Justice John Archibald Campbell, who had retired from the federal bench because of his Confederate loyalties, represented persons in a number of cases in New Orleans to obstruct Radical Reconstruction. Although the Fourteenth Amendment was passed mainly to protect the freedmen in the South, the language of Section 1 is not racially limited. Campbell used it to argue for a new, broad reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, in order to allow butchers of any race to "sustain their lives through labor".

## Decision

[edit]

On April 14, 1873, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in favor of the slaughterhouse company upholding the constitutionality of Louisiana's use of its police powers to regulate butchers.

### Opinion of the Court

[edit]

Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, the author of the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller framed the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments as primarily protecting former black slaves. Accordingly, the Supreme Court rejected the butchers' Equal Protection Clause arguments, believing that it only prohibited anti-Black discrimination. The Due Process Clause claims were also rejected by declining to consider modified labor conditions as a deprivation of property.[4]

Agreeing with the Louisiana Supreme Court that the butchers' interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause would turn federal courts into "a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the states," the Supreme Court described the clause as only protecting the rights of national citizenship, rather than the more expansive rights of state citizenship.[5][6] Noting that the Fourteenth Amendment begins with the Citizenship Clause conferring national citizenship upon freed black slaves to supersede the Court's 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Miller concluded that the amendment only focuses on the rights of national citizenship.[7] In identifying some of the privileges and immunities of federal citizenship, Miller relied on Bushrod Washington's earlier listing in Corfield v. Coryell (1823) which included the right to travel, seek habeas corpus, and hold property in multiple states.[8][9]

While Miller's opinion is remembered as diminishing the Privileges or Immunities Clause's ability to protect the civil rights of African Americans, historians believe that he intended to protect the biracial Louisiana State Legislature from national interference.[10] Campbell had hoped to use the case to undermine the state government's legitimacy, and southern newspapers condemned the decision for strengthening the Reconstruction era state government.[11][12]

### Dissents

[edit]

Justices Stephen J. Field (left), Joseph P. Bradley (center), and Noah H. Swayne (right), the authors of the dissenting opinions in Slaughter-House

Four justices dissented from the Court's decision, and three of them wrote dissenting opinions.

Justice Stephen J. Field protested that Miller's narrow reading of the Fourteenth Amendment rendered it "a vain and idle enactment, which accomplished nothing and most unnecessarily excited Congress and the people on its passage."[13] Field accepted Campbell's reading of the amendment as not confined to protection of freed slaves but embracing the common law presumption in favor of an individual right to pursue a legitimate occupation. Field's reading of the due process clause of the amendment would prevail in future cases in which the court read the amendment broadly to protect personal interests against hostile state laws[citation needed].

Justice Joseph P. Bradley's dissent argued that the Privileges or Immunities Clause incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states.[14] In Bradley's view, the Citizenship Clause had elevated national citizenship above state citizenship, demanding recognition of new rights against state regulation.[12]

Justice Noah H. Swayne's dissent criticized the Court's rejection of the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment and its Privileges or Immunities Clause had been intended to transform American government.[15] Speaking of the Court's objection that a broad reading of the Clause would make it a "perpetual censor" on state governments, Swayne said that Congress and the states had been aware of that when they adopted the Fourteenth Amendment.

> It is objected that the power conferred is novel and large. The answer is that the novelty was known and the measure deliberately adopted. ... It is necessary to enable the government of the nation to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and privileges enumerated, which, according to the plainest considerations of reason and justice and the fundamental principles of the social compact, all are entitled to enjoy. Without such authority, any government claiming to be national is glaringly defective.

— Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. at 129 (Swayne, J., dissenting).[16]

## Subsequent developments

[edit]

See also: Privileges or Immunities Clause § Interpretation after adoption

The victory of the Crescent City Company survived for only 11 years. By 1879, the State of Louisiana had adopted a new constitution prohibiting the state's ability to grant slaughterhouse monopolies, devolving regulation of cattle slaughter to parishes and municipalities, and banning the subordinate governmental units from granting monopoly rights over such activities. Having essentially lost its monopoly protection, the Crescent City Co. sued. That case ended in Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co. (1884),[17] with the Supreme Court holding that Crescent City Co. did not have a contract with the state and so that revocation of the monopoly privilege was not a violation of the Contract Clause.

## Analysis

[edit]

The Slaughter-House Cases essentially "gutted" the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[18] The American scholar Edward Samuel Corwin remarked: "Unique among constitutional provisions, the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enjoys the distinction of having been rendered a practical nullity by a single decision of the Supreme Court rendered within five years after its ratification."[19]

The Supreme Court has used the Privileges or Immunities Clause to declare a law unconstitutional only one time in the modern era, in the 1999 case Saenz v. Roe where it examined a California law barring new state residents from receiving welfare benefits. While he dissented, Justice Clarence Thomas nevertheless took the opportunity to criticize the Slaughter-House Cases, stating, "Legal scholars agree on little beyond the conclusion that the Clause does not mean what the Court said it meant in 1873." Thomas later expanded on his view of the Clause, at least as it relates to incorporating the Bill of Rights against the States, in McDonald v. Chicago. In 2001, the American legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar similarly wrote of the Slaughter-House Cases: "Virtually no serious modern scholar—left, right, and center—thinks that the decision is a plausible reading of the [Fourteenth] Amendment."[20] This view was echoed by historian Eric Foner, who wrote "[T]he Court's ... studied distinction between the privileges deriving from state and national citizenship should have been seriously doubted by anyone who read the Congressional debates of the 1860s".[21]

Kevin Gutzman, an American constitutional scholar and historian, argues that the Fourteenth Amendment was originally meant to protect only "specifically federal rights" and describes the later, broader interpretation of the Amendment as "the Court's [use of] the Fourteenth Amendment to claim a capacious national judicial authority". Gutzman believes that "legal academics despise the Slaughterhouse decision because they do think the federal courts should be 'a perpetual censor upon all legislation in the States'".[22]

## See also

[edit]

* Chase Court

## References

[edit]

Notes

1. ^ a b c d Beatty, Jack (2008). Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865–1900. New York: Vintage Books. p. 135\. ISBN 978-1400032426. Retrieved July 19, 2013.
2. ^ a b c d "Slaughterhouse Cases". cornell.edu.
3. ^ Pamela Brandwein (May 2004). "Can the Slaughter-House Cases Be Saved from Its Critics?". H-Net Reviews.
4. ^ Chemerinsky (2019), § 6.3.2, p. 541.
5. ^ Chemerinsky (2019), § 6.3.2, pp. 541–42.
6. ^ Nowak & Rotunda (2012), § 14.3(b).
7. ^ Tribe (2000), p. 1304.
8. ^ Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. at 80, quoted in Tribe (2000), p. 1307.
9. ^ Tribe (2000), pp. 1306–07.
10. ^ Huebner, Timothy S. (2016). "Politics and the Reconstructed Constitutional Order". Liberty and Union: The Civil War Era and American Constitutionalism. University Press of Kansas. pp. 397–398\. ISBN 9780700624867.
11. ^ Barnett, Randy E. (November 2016). "The Three Narratives of the Slaughter-House Cases". Journal of Supreme Court History. 41 (3): 302–304.
12. ^ a b Foner, Eric (2019). The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 129–136\. ISBN 9780393652574.
13. ^ Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. at 96 (Field, J., dissenting), quoted in Tribe (2000), p. 1309.
14. ^ Tribe (2000), p. 1308.
15. ^ Tribe (2000), p. 1310.
16. ^ Quoted in part in Tribe (2000), p. 1310.
17. ^ 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
18. ^ Tribe, Laurence H. (1995). "Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation". Harvard Law Review. 108 (6): 1221–1303\. doi:10.2307/1341856. ISSN 0017-811X. JSTOR 1341856.
19. ^ Edward S. Corwin, ed., (1953) The Constitution of the United States of America, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, p. 965, cited in Chemerinsky (2019), § 6.3.2, pp. 542–43
20. ^ Amar (2001), p. 631, note 178.
21. ^ Foner, Eric (2014) [1988] Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 pp.528-529. New York: Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0-06-235451-8
22. ^ Gutzman, Kevin R. C. (2007). The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing. pp. 134–137.

Bibliography

* Amar, Akhil (2001). "Substance and Method in the Year 2000". Pepperdine Law Review. 28 (3): 601–32.
* Chemerinsky, Erwin (2019). Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (6th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4548-9574-9.
* Lurie, Jonathan & Labbe, Ronald (2003). Regulation, Reconstruction, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Wichita: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1290-4.
* Nowak, John E.; Rotunda, Ronald D. (2012). Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure (5th ed.). Eagan, MN: West Thomson/Reuters. OCLC 798148265.
* Tribe, Laurence H. (2000). American Constitutional Law (3rd ed.). New York: Foundation Press. ISBN 978-1-56662-714-6.

## External links

[edit]

* Texts on Wikisource:
* Slaughter-House Cases, text of 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
* "Slaughter-House Cases". Encyclopedia Americana. 1920.
* Text of Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 (1873) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist
* Can the Slaughter-House Cases Be Saved from Its Critics? – Pamela Brandwein (University of Texas at Dallas)
* Slaughterhouse Cases – PBS.com
* "Supreme Court Landmark Case, Slaughterhouse Cases" from C-SPAN's Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions

* v
* t
* e

United States Fourteenth Amendment case law

Citizenship Clause

* Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
* Minor v. Happersett (1875)
* Elk v. Wilkins (1884)
* United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
* Mackenzie v. Hare (1915)
* Perez v. Brownell (1958)
* Afroyim v. Rusk (1967)
* Rogers v. Bellei (1971)
* Vance v. Terrazas (1980)
* Saenz v. Roe (1999)

Due Process Clause

| Economic substantive
due process|

* Mugler v. Kansas (1887)
* Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)
* Holden v. Hardy (1898)
* Lochner v. New York (1905)
* Muller v. Oregon (1908)
* Coppage v. Kansas (1915)
* Buchanan v. Warley (1917)
* Adams v. Tanner (1917)
* O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (1931)
* West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)

|

Abortion jurisprudence|

* United States v. Vuitch (1971)
* Roe v. Wade (1973)
* Doe v. Bolton (1973)
* Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976)
* Bellotti v. Baird I (1976)
* Colautti v. Franklin (1979)
* Bellotti v. Baird II (1979)
* H. L. v. Matheson (1981)
* City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983)
* Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (1986)
* Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
* Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990)
* Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
* Mazurek v. Armstrong (1997)
* Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
* Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (2006)
* Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)
* Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)
* Azar v. Garza (2018)
* Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (2019)
* June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo (2020)
* Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)

Right to privacy|

* Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
* Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
* Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
* Roe v. Wade (1973)
* Doe v. Bolton (1973)
* Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
* Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
* Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
* Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
* Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)

Litigation under
R.S. § 1979 (42 U.S.C. 1983)|

* Monroe v. Pape (1961)
* McNeese v. Board of Education (1963)
* Pierson v. Ray (1967)
* Jenkins v. McKeithen (1969)
* Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974)
* Wood v. Strickland (1975)
* O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975)
* Paul v. Davis (1976)
* Imbler v. Pachtman (1976)
* Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York (1978)
* Procunier v. Navarette (1978)
* Owen v. City of Independence (1980)
* Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982)
* Felder v. Casey (1988)
* Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (1989)
* Gonzaga University v. Doe (2002)
* Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community (2003)
* City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)
* Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (2009)
* Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009)
* Los Angeles County v. Humphries (2010)
* Connick v. Thompson (2011)

Other|

* Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)
* Zucht v. King (1922)
* Buck v. Bell (1927)
* Powell v. Alabama (1932)
* Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950)
* NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
* Hoyt v. Florida (1961)
* Oyler v. Boles (1962)
* Loving v. Virginia (1967)
* Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)
* In re Winship (1971)
* Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (1974)
* Arnett v. Kennedy (1974)
* Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
* Goss v. Lopez (1975)
* Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)
* Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)
* Duren v. Missouri (1979)
* Parham v. J.R. (1979)
* Parratt v. Taylor (1981)
* Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982)
* Kolender v. Lawson (1983)
* Hudson v. Palmer (1984)
* Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985)
* Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
* Turner v. Safley (1987)
* DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)
* Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989)
* Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990)
* Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
* Troxel v. Granville (2000)
* Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009)
* Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
* Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016)

Equal Protection Clause

| Race|

* Pace v. Alabama (1883)
* Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
* Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
* Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education (1899)
* Lum v. Rice (1927)
* Smith v. Texas (1940)
* Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)
* Korematsu v. United States (1944)
* Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1948)
* Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
* Perez v. Sharp (Cal. 1948)
* Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
* McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950)
* Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
* Briggs v. Elliott
* Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County
* Gebhart v. Belton
* Lucy v. Adams (1955)
* Browder v. Gayle (M.D. Ala. 1956)
* Anderson v. Martin (1964)
* Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (1964)
* McLaughlin v. Florida (1964)
* Reitman v. Mulkey (1967)
* Loving v. Virginia (1967)
* Lee v. Washington (1968)
* Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968)
* Hunter v. Erickson (1969)
* Hadnott v. Amos (1969)
* United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education (1969)
* Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education (1969)
* Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)
* McDaniel v. Barresi (1971)
* Palmer v. Thompson (1971)
* Coit v. Green (1971)
* Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson (1971)
* Jefferson v. Hackney (1972)
* Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver (1973)
* Norwood v. Harrison (1973)
* Milliken v. Bradley (1974)
* Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977)
* Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman (1977)
* Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
* Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 (1982)
* Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education (1982)
* Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)
* Hunter v. Underwood (1985)
* Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986)
* City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989)
* Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell (1991)
* Freeman v. Pitts (1992)
* United States v. Fordice (1992)
* Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville (1993)
* Missouri v. Jenkins (1995)
* Texas v. Lesage (1999)
* Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
* Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
* Johnson v. California (2005)
* Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
* Fisher v. University of Texas I (2013)
* Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014)
* Fisher v. University of Texas II (2016)
* Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023)

|

Sex|

* Breedlove v. Suttles (1937)
* Goesaert v. Cleary (1948)
* Reed v. Reed (1971)
* Moritz v. Commissioner (1972)
* Kahn v. Shevin (1974)
* Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)
* Stanton v. Stanton (1975)
* Edwards v. Healy (1975)
* Craig v. Boren (1976)
* Orr v. Orr (1979)
* Parham v. Hughes (1979)
* Caban v. Mohammed (1979)
* Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney (1979)
* Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co. (1980)
* Kirchberg v. Feenstra (1981)
* Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (1981)
* Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982)
* Lehr v. Robertson (1983)
* J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. (1994)
* United States v. Virginia (1996)
* United States v. Skrmetti (2024)

Sexual orientation|

* Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
* Romer v. Evans (1996)
* Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Alienage|

* Patsone v. Pennsylvania (1914)
* Truax v. Raich (1915)
* Heim v. McCall (1915)
* Crane v. New York (1915)
* Terrace v. Thompson (1923)
* Porterfield v. Webb (1923)
* Webb v. O'Brien (1923)
* Frick v. Webb (1923)
* Ohio ex rel. Clark v. Deckebach (1927)
* Takahashi v. Fish and Game Comm'n (1948)
* Hernandez v. Texas (1954)
* Graham v. Richardson (1971)
* Sugarman v. Dougall (1973)
* In re Griffiths (1973)
* Examining Board v. Flores de Otero (1976)
* Nyquist v. Mauclet (1977)
* Foley v. Connelie (1978)
* Ambach v. Norwick (1979)
* Cabell v. Chavez-Salido (1982)
* Plyler v. Doe (1982)
* Bernal v. Fainter (1984)

Residency|

* Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)
* Arlington County Board v. Richards (1977)
* Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward (1985)

Other|

* United States v. Cruikshank (1876)
* Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886)
* Quaker City Cab Co. v. Commonwealth (1928)
* Breedlove v. Suttles (1937)
* Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
* Oyama v. California (1948)
* Oyler v. Boles (1962)
* Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966)
* Rinaldi v. Yeager (1966)
* Levy v. Louisiana (1968)
* Williams v. Rhodes (1968)
* Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)
* Boddie v. Connecticut (1971)
* Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
* Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. (1973)
* San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)
* Richardson v. Ramirez (1974)
* Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas (1974)
* Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia (1976)
* Trimble v. Gordon (1977)
* Zablocki v. Redhail (1978)
* New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer (1979)
* Mills v. Habluetzel (1982)
* City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985)
* Clark v. Jeter (1988)
* Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools (1988)
* Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991)
* Vacco v. Quill (1997)
* Bush v. Gore (2000)
* Armour v. Indianapolis (2012)

Enforcement Clause

* Civil Rights Cases (1883)
* Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966)
* Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976)
* Dellmuth v. Muth (1989)
* City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
* Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)
* Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000)
* United States v. Morrison (2000)
* Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001)
* Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)
* Tennessee v. Lane (2004)
* United States v. Georgia (2006)
* Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Other

* Gold Clause Cases (1935)
* Trump v. Anderson (2024)

* v
* t
* e

Reconstruction era

Participants|

Federal government

* Presidents
* Abraham Lincoln
* Andrew Johnson
* Ulysses S. Grant
* Rutherford B. Hayes

* Congress
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* Radical Republicans
* Moderate Republicans
* Conservative Republicans
* African-American senators
* African-American representatives
* Reconstruction Amendments
* United States Congressional Joint Committee on Reconstruction
* United States House Select Committee on Reconstruction

* Federal judiciary
* Taney Court
* Chase Court
* Waite Court

* Federal bureaucracy
* Edwin Stanton
* Freedmen's Bureau
* Justice Department

|

State governments

* Southern United States
* Confederate States of America

Others|

* African Americans
* Free people of color
* Freedman
* Politicians
* Carpetbaggers
* Ku Klux Klan
* Scalawag
* Redeemers
* White League
* Red Shirts
* Democratic Party
* Bourbon Democrat
* Horatio Seymour
* Samuel J. Tilden
* Republican Party
* Stalwarts
* Charles Sumner
* Thaddeus Stevens
* Lyman Trumbull
* Benjamin Wade
* John Bingham
* James Mitchell Ashley
* Freedman's Savings Bank
* Women during the Reconstruction era

Elections|

Presidential

* 1864
* DNC
* National Union Convention
* Radical Democratic Party

* 1868
* DNC
* RNC

* 1872
* DNC
* RNC
* Liberal Republican Party
* Straight-Out Democratic Party
* Victoria Woodhull

* 1876
* DNC
* RNC
* Greenback Convention
* Prohibition Convention
* Electoral Commission
* Compromise of 1877

|

U.S. Senate|

* 1864–65
* 1866–67
* 1868–69
* 1870–71
* 1872–73
* 1874–75
* 1876–77

U.S. House|

* 1864–65
* 1866–67
* 1868–69
* 1870–71
* 1872–73
* 1874–75
* 1876–77

Gubernatorial|

* 1863
* Alabama
* California
* Connecticut
* Kentucky
* Massachusetts
* Minnesota
* New Hampshire
* Ohio
* Pennsylvania
* Virginia
* Vermont
* Wisconsin
* West Virginia

* 1864
* Connecticut
* Illinois
* Indiana
* Louisiana
* Maryland
* Massachusetts
* Michigan
* Missouri
* New Hampshire
* Vermont
* West Virginia

* 1865
* Connecticut
* Florida
* Louisiana
* Massachusetts
* Minnesota
* New Jersey
* Ohio
* South Carolina
* Vermont
* Wisconsin

* 1866
* Connecticut
* Delaware
* Massachusetts
* Maine
* Michigan
* North Carolina
* Oregon
* Pennsylvania
* Texas
* Vermont
* West Virginia

* 1867
* California
* Connecticut
* Kentucky
* Massachusetts
* Maryland
* Maine
* Minnesota
* Ohio
* Vermont
* Wisconsin

* 1868
* Alabama
* Connecticut
* Florida
* Illinois
* Indiana
* Kentucky (special)
* Louisiana
* Massachusetts
* Maine
* Michigan
* Missouri
* North Carolina
* New Jersey
* South Carolina
* Vermont
* West Virginia

* 1869
* Connecticut
* Iowa
* Massachusetts
* Maine
* Minnesota
* Mississippi
* Ohio
* Pennsylvania
* Rhode Island
* Virginia
* Vermont
* Wisconsin

* 1870
* Alabama
* Connecticut
* Delaware
* Massachusetts
* Maine
* Michigan
* Missouri
* Oregon
* Rhode Island
* South Carolina
* Vermont
* West Virginia

* 1871
* California
* Connecticut
* Iowa
* Kentucky
* Massachusetts
* Maryland
* Maine
* Minnesota
* New Jersey
* Ohio
* Rhode Island
* Wisconsin

* 1872
* Alabama
* Connecticut
* Florida
* Illinois
* Indiana
* Louisiana
* Massachusetts
* Maine
* Michigan
* Missouri
* North Carolina
* Pennsylvania
* Rhode Island
* South Carolina
* Vermont
* West Virginia

* 1873
* Connecticut
* Iowa
* Massachusetts
* Maine
* Minnesota
* Mississippi
* Ohio
* Texas
* Virginia
* Wisconsin

* 1874
* Alabama
* Connecticut
* Delaware
* Kansas
* Massachusetts
* Maine
* Michigan
* Missouri
* New Jersey
* Nevada
* Oregon
* South Carolina
* Vermont

* 1875
* California
* Connecticut
* Iowa
* Kentucky
* Massachusetts
* Maryland
* Maine
* Minnesota
* Ohio
* Ohio
* Wisconsin

* 1876
* Alabama
* Colorado
* Connecticut April
* Connecticut November
* Florida
* Illinois
* Indiana
* Kansas
* Louisiana
* Massachusetts
* Maine
* Michigan
* Missouri
* North Carolina
* Rhode Island
* South Carolina
* Vermont
* West Virginia

U.S. elections|

* 1864
* 1866
* 1868
* 1870
* 1872
* 1874
* 1876

Key events|

| Prelude|

* American Indian Wars
* Slavery in the United States
* A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792)
* The Equality of the Sexes and the Condition of Women (1838)
* Woman in the Nineteenth Century (1839)
* Seneca Falls Convention (1848)
* National Women's Rights Convention (1850)
* American Civil War
* Confiscation Act of 1861
* Confiscation Act of 1862
* District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act (1862)
* Militia Act of 1862

|

1863|

* Emancipation Proclamation
* General Order No. 143
* Lincoln's presidential Reconstruction
* Ten percent plan
* National Bank Act
* Women's Loyal National League
* New York City draft riots
* 1863 State of the Union Address

1864|

* Wade–Davis Bill
* 1864 elections
* 1864 State of the Union Address

1865|

* 13th Amendment
* Second inauguration of Abraham Lincoln
* Address
* Black Codes
* Special Field Orders No. 15
* Freedmen's Bureau
* Freedmen's Bureau bills
* Confederates surrender at Appomattox
* Assassination of Abraham Lincoln
* Shaw University
* New Departure
* 1865 State of the Union Address
* Founding of the Ku Klux Klan

1866|

* Civil Rights Act of 1866
* Memphis massacre of 1866
* New Orleans Massacre of 1866
* Swing Around the Circle
* Southern Homestead Act of 1866
* Fort Smith Conference and Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty of 1866
* Choctaw and Chickasaw Treaty of Washington of 1866
* Tennessee readmitted to Union
* Petition for Universal Freedom
* National Labor Union
* Ex parte Garland
* Ex parte Milligan
* Slave Kidnapping Act of 1866

* 1866 elections

1867|

* Tenure of Office Act
* Command of Army Act
* Indian Peace Commission
* Knights of the White Camelia
* Pulaski riot
* Reconstruction Acts
* Reconstruction military districts
* Constitutional conventions of 1867
* Habeas Corpus Act of 1867
* Peonage Act of 1867
* First impeachment inquiry into Andrew Johnson
* 1867 State of the Union Address

1868|

* 14th Amendment
* Second impeachment inquiry into Andrew Johnson
* Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
* Timeline
* Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson
* Impeachment managers investigation
* Articles of impeachment
* Arkansas readmitted to Union
* Florida readmitted to Union
* North Carolina readmitted to Union
* South Carolina readmitted to Union
* Louisiana readmitted to Union
* Alabama readmitted to Union
* Opelousas massacre
* Fourth Reconstruction Act
* Georgia v. Stanton
* 1868 elections
* 1868 State of the Union Address

1869|

* National Woman Suffrage Association
* American Woman Suffrage Association
* Alabama Claims
* Proposed annexation of Santo Domingo
* Board of Indian Commissioners
* Public Credit Act of 1869
* Black Friday (1869)
* Ex parte McCardle
* First transcontinental railroad
* 1869 State of the Union Address

1870|

* 15th Amendment
* Enforcement Act of 1870
* Justice Department
* Naturalization Act of 1870
* Kirk–Holden war
* Shoffner Act
* 1870 elections
* 1870 State of the Union Address

1871|

* Ku Klux Klan hearings
* Second Enforcement Act
* Ku Klux Klan Act
* Alcorn State University
* Meridian race riot of 1871
* Treaty of Washington
* New York custom house ring
* Civil service commission
* United States expedition to Korea
* 1871 State of the Union Address

1872|

* General Mining Act of 1872
* Crédit Mobilier scandal
* Modoc War
* Star Route scandal
* Salary Grab Act
* Amnesty Act
* 1872 elections
* 1872 State of the Union Address

1873|

* Panic of 1873
* Colfax massacre
* Timber Culture Act
* Slaughter-House Cases
* Virginius Affair
* Coinage Act of 1873
* Long Depression
* Comstock laws
* 1873 State of the Union Address

1874|

* Brooks–Baxter War
* Battle of Liberty Place
* Coushatta massacre
* Red River War
* Timber Culture Act
* White League
* Election Massacre of 1874
* Vicksburg massacre
* Black Hills Gold Rush
* Sanborn incident
* Anti-Moiety Acts
* 1874 elections
* 1874 State of the Union Address

1875|

* United States v. Cruikshank
* Civil Rights Act of 1875
* Red Shirts
* Mississippi Plan
* Clifton Riot of 1875
* Yazoo City Riot of 1875
* Specie Payment Resumption Act
* Whiskey Ring
* Wheeler Compromise
* Delano affair
* Pratt & Boyd
* 1875 State of the Union Address

1876|

* Hamburg massacre
* South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876
* Ellenton massacre
* Great Sioux War of 1876
* Battle of the Little Bighorn
* United States v. Reese
* Trader post scandal
* Centennial Exposition
* Cattellism
* Safe burglary conspiracy
* 1876 elections
* 1876 State of the Union Address

1877|

* Electoral Commission
* Compromise of 1877
* Nez Perce War
* Desert Land Act
* Great Railroad Strike of 1877

Aftermath|

* Posse Comitatus Act (1878)
* Civil Rights Cases (1883)
* United States v. Harris (1883)
* Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
* Williams v. Mississippi (1898)
* Wilmington massacre
* Giles v. Harris (1903)
* Disenfranchisement

Aspects|

| Historiography|

* Bibliography of the Reconstruction era
* James Shepherd Pike
* The Prostrate State (1874)
* James Bryce
* The American Commonwealth (1888)
* Claude G. Bowers
* The Tragic Era (1929)
* Columbia University
* John Burgess
* Walter L. Fleming
* Dunning School
* William Archibald Dunning
* Charles A. Beard
* Howard K. Beale
* W. E. B. Du Bois
* Black Reconstruction in America (1935)
* C. Vann Woodward
* Joel Williamson
* William R. Brock
* The American Crisis (1963)
* John Hope Franklin
* From Slavery to Freedom (1947)
* After Slavery (1965)
* Leon Litwack
* Been in the Storm So Long (1979)
* Eric Foner
* Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (1988)
* Kenneth M. Stampp
* Steven Hahn
* A Nation Under Our Feet (2003)
* The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (2019)

|

Memory|

* Winslow Homer
* A Visit from the Old Mistress (1876)
* Thomas Dixon Jr.
* The Leopard's Spots (1902)
* The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan (1905)
* D. W. Griffith
* The Birth of a Nation (1915)
* United Daughters of the Confederacy
* Gone with the Wind (1939)
* David W. Blight
* Race and Reunion (2001)

Legacy|

* Women's suffrage in the United States
* Labor history of the United States
* Gilded Age
* Jim Crow era
* Civil rights movement
* American frontier

Other topics|

* African American founding fathers of the United States
* Forty acres and a mule
* Habeas corpus
* History of the United States (1865–1917)
* Paramilitary
* Race (human categorization)
* Reconstruction Treaties
* Suffrage
* Technological and industrial history of the United States
* White supremacy
* Whitecapping

* Category

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template