In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court ruled

In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court ruled

• A. The 'privileges and immunities' clause did not protect citizens from discriminatory actions by state governments.
• B. Segregation is unconstitutional.
• C. Separate facilities were acceptable if equal.
• D. The literacy test is acceptable.

Answer: (A)

The main idea in this question is how the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause was interpreted. In the Slaughter-House Cases, the Supreme Court narrowed that clause, saying it primarily protected only the rights of national citizenship and not broad protections against state actions. In practical terms, this meant that the clause did not shield individuals from discriminatory actions by state governments; protections against state wrongdoing would come through other parts of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. So the statement that the privileges and immunities clause did not protect citizens from discriminatory actions by state governments is the best answer because it reflects how the Court limited the clause’s reach. The other options address segregation, “separate but equal” facilities, or literacy tests—issues that are resolved under different doctrines or later cases, not by the Slaughter-House decision. This case sets a pattern of relying on due process and equal protection rather than the privileges or immunities clause to challenge state discrimination.

The main idea in this question is how the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause was interpreted. In the Slaughter-House Cases, the Supreme Court narrowed that clause, saying it primarily protected only the rights of national citizenship and not broad protections against state actions. In practical terms, this meant that the clause did not shield individuals from discriminatory actions by state governments; protections against state wrongdoing would come through other parts of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. So the statement that the privileges and immunities clause did not protect citizens from discriminatory actions by state governments is the best answer because it reflects how the Court limited the clause’s reach. The other options address segregation, “separate but equal” facilities, or literacy tests—issues that are resolved under different doctrines or later cases, not by the Slaughter-House decision. This case sets a pattern of relying on due process and equal protection rather than the privileges or immunities clause to challenge state discrimination.