Barnard v. Thorstenn
E87374
Barnard v. Thorstenn is a U.S. Supreme Court case that, like Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, addressed the constitutionality of residency requirements for bar admission under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Statements (33)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
→
legal case → |
| appliesTo |
state bar admission rules
→
territorial bar admission rules → |
| areaOfImpact |
interstate mobility of professionals
→
professional licensing → |
| citationRelationship |
followed reasoning of Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
→
|
| comparedTo |
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper in analysis of bar residency rules
→
|
| constitutionalClauseType |
interstate comity
→
|
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved |
Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause
→
|
| constitutionalRightProtected |
right of citizens to pursue a common calling in other states
→
right of nonresidents to practice law on substantially equal terms → |
| court |
Supreme Court of the United States
→
|
| decisionScope |
applies to U.S. territories as well as states
→
|
| holding |
residency requirements for bar admission violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause
→
|
| holdingType |
unconstitutional residency requirement
→
|
| issue |
constitutionality of residency requirements for bar admission
→
whether a territory may limit bar admission to residents → |
| jurisdiction |
United States
→
|
| legalEffect |
limited the ability of states and territories to impose residency requirements for bar admission
→
|
| legalPrinciple |
discrimination against nonresidents must bear a close relation to the state’s objectives
→
states and territories must show substantial reasons for discriminating against nonresidents in fundamental activities → |
| legalSubject |
Privileges and Immunities Clause
→
bar admission → constitutional law → residency requirements → |
| partyType |
bar applicants
→
territorial bar authorities → |
| reasoning |
practicing law is a protected privilege under the Privileges and Immunities Clause
→
territorial concerns about nonresident lawyers did not justify a blanket residency requirement → |
| relatedCase |
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
→
|
| relatedDoctrine |
substantial reason test under the Privileges and Immunities Clause
→
|
| usedAsPrecedentFor |
challenges to residency-based restrictions on professional practice
→
|
Referenced by (1)
| Subject (surface form when different) | Predicate |
|---|---|
|
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
→
|
relatedCase |