Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper (1984)
- Docket
- 83-1466
- Decided
- 1984-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the residency requirement for admission to the New Hampshire Bar violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution? Conclusion: Yes. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 8-1 majority. The Court held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause was intended to create one economic union out of a collection of states, and so it was relevant to employment and business regulations. Specifically the legal profession plays a crucial rule in the national economy, and therefore the ability to practice should be considered a “fundamental right” that is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The Court also held that, because a lawyer is not an officer of the State, there is no substantial reason for New Hampshire to exclude non-residents from the bar. Justice Byron R. White wrote a concurring opinion and argued that, other than the location of Piper’s home, there was nothing to distinguish her from any other New Hampshire lawyer. He found that the residency requirement should not apply in her case, but he did not think the majority’s opinion needed to reach any finding regarding the Constitutional validity of the residency requirement in general. In his dissenting opinion, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the practice of law differed from other professions in that it does not always readily translate across state lines, as laws and their enforcement often differ in different localities. He also argued that the state had substantial reasons to exclude out-of-state lawyers from the bar.