Read on Twitter
If, for some reason, you're looking for something to occupy your mind today, may I suggest you read the amicus briefs filed yesterday in support of @IJ's cert petition seeking to revive the Privileges or Immunities Clause?
I described the case a month ago, after the Court called for a response. https://twitter.com/FreeRangeLawyer/status/1312085325993345024?s=20
First up, the brief for a coalition of law professors who study constitutional law and have a few things to say about the Fourteenth Amendment. https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20-361-Law-Professors-Amicus-Brief-003.pdf
Some strong language here! (And totally justified, too -- Slaughterhouse says the PIC means *almost* nothing, but the Ninth Circuit here took away the almost.)
Also, we have some Privileges/Immunities Confusion here -- the Ninth Circuit mixed up the Privileges *or* Immunities Clause with the Privileges *and* Immunities Clause.
Does somebody need to send the Ninth Circuit a pocket constitution? (Don't answer that.)
Does somebody need to send the Ninth Circuit a pocket constitution? (Don't answer that.)
Next up, the brief of three historians who study African American history, particularly in the antebellum South. https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20-361-tsac-Schoeppner-Ely-and-Bolster.pdf
The specific right at issue in the petition, recall, is the right to use the navigable waters of the United States. That may sound like a small thing today, but the historians explain that it was a critically important right to newly freed slaves.
Like, seriously important!
And you will be shocked to learn that the antebellum South enacted a number of laws designed to restrict that important right--laws that formed part of the background for enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Finally, Cynthia Crawford of @AFPhq wrote an excellent brief discussing the broader history of the right to use the navigable waters. https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2020.11.02-AFPF-Amicus-Br.-Courtney-v-Danner-No-20-361-final.pdf
Again, the right to use the navigable waters is something we don't think about today. But historically, the ability to move over the waters was a major issue -- and a major source of human freedom.
And if you're in the mood to read about another @IJ case, I'll add that access to the waters is still a major issue today -- and a right we're also fighting for (under different constitutional provisions) in an ongoing case against the Coast Guard. https://ij.org/case/great-lakes-pilot/
