THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES

Print this Page
Case Basics
Petitioner 
The Slaughterhouse Cases
Decided By 
Opinion 
Term:
Facts of the Case 

Louisiana had created a partial monopoly of the slaughtering business and gave it to one company. Competitors argued that this created "involuntary servitude," abridged "privileges and immunities," denied "equal protection of the laws," and deprived them of "liberty and property without due process of law."

Question 

Did the creation of the monopoly violate the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion 
Decision: 5 votes for , 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Amend. 13, 14, 15

No. The involuntary servitude claim did not forbid limits on the right to use one's property. The equal protection claim was misplaced since it was established to void laws discriminating against blacks. The due process claim simply imposes the identical requirements on the states as the fifth amendment imposes on the national government. The Court devoted most of its opinion to a narrow construction of the privileges and immunities clause, which was interpreted to apply to national citizenship, not state citizenship.

Cite this Page
THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 20 April 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1872/1872_2>.
THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1872/1872_2 (last visited April 20, 2014).
"THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1872/1872_2.