Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitappealdiscrimination

appellee

Related Cases

Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 105 S.Ct. 1272, 84 L.Ed.2d 205, 53 USLW 4238

Facts

Kathryn Piper, a resident of Vermont, applied to take the New Hampshire bar examination and was allowed to do so after being found of good moral character. However, she was denied admission to the bar due to Rule 42, which required bar applicants to be residents of New Hampshire. After her request for an exception was denied, Piper filed a lawsuit claiming that the residency requirement violated her constitutional rights. The District Court ruled in her favor, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

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.

Issue

Does the New Hampshire Supreme Court's Rule 42, which limits bar admission to state residents, violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution?

We here consider whether this restriction violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. IV, § 2.

Rule

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2 prohibits states from discriminating against nonresidents unless there is a substantial reason for the discrimination and the means chosen bear a substantial relationship to the state's objectives.

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.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the reasons provided by New Hampshire for the residency requirement were substantial enough to justify the discrimination against nonresidents. The Court found that the justifications offered, such as concerns about nonresidents' familiarity with local rules and their ethical behavior, did not meet the required standard of substantiality. The Court concluded that the residency requirement was not closely tailored to achieve the state's objectives.

We conclude that New Hampshire's bar residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, of the United States Constitution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, concluding that New Hampshire's residency requirement for bar admission violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution.

We therefore conclude that the right to practice law is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Who won?

Kathryn Piper prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that the New Hampshire residency requirement unjustly discriminated against nonresidents without substantial justification.

The prevailing judges held that Rule 42 violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Bernard v. Gulf Oil Co., 619 F.2d 459, 23 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 20, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,029, 29 Fed.R.Serv.2d 960

Van Asdale v. International Game Technology, 577 F.3d 989, 92 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,644, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,314, 29 IER Cases 769, 2009 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 33,015, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,331, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,417, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,023

Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, 119 Cal.App.4th 930, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5507, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6551, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7523, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8931

Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 223 Ill.2d 1, 857 N.E.2d 250, 306 Ill.Dec. 157

Marts v. Hines, 117 F.3d 1504