imported post
Poosharker,
You might want to read this and explore it a bit.
The Article IV Privileges & Immunities Clause means "that in any state every citizen of any other state is to have the same privileges and immunities which the citizens of that state enjoy. This section, in effect, prevents a state from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of its own.” Hague v. Committee for Indus. Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 511 (1939)."A State may discriminate against nonresidents only where its reasons are ‘substantial,’ and the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relation to those reasons."Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 288 (1985). Therefore, a state may not restrict licensure to state citizens to partake in a privilege,id. (“We conclude that New Hampshire’s bar residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, of the United States Constitution. The nonresident’s interest in practicing law is a ‘privilege’ protected by the Clause. Although the 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.’ ”), nor may a state otherwise deny to nonresidents a privilege granted to its citizens even absent a licensing scheme.Lee v. Minner, 458 F.3d 194, 201-02 (3rd Cir. 2006) (“Pursuant to Article IV, section 2, a state may not discriminate against noncitizens with respect to any protected right unless the state has a substantial reason for the discriminatory policy that bears a substantial relationship to the state’s objectives. Delaware’s public records law discriminates on its face between citizens and noncitizens. Although the State has a substantial interest in ‘defining its political community,’ the citizens-only provision of its public records law does not bear a substantial relationship to that interest. Accordingly, we conclude that the provision violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. We therefore will affirm the District Court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Lee and enjoining Delaware from limiting FOIA benefits to Delaware citizens.”). However, a state may discriminate where the state granted privilege is discretionary and the state asserts a cognizable and substantial reason to discriminate where the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relation to that reason. Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 95 (2nd Cir. 2005) (“Privileges and Immunities Clause cannot preclude New York’s residency requirement in light of the State’s substantial interest in monitoring handgun licensees.”).
