Slaughterhouse Case
The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) represented a block appeal to the United States Supreme Court testing the relatively new Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. It is viewed as a pivotal case in early civil rights law since the Supreme Court refused to extend due process to property rights.
Properly known as In Re Slaughter-House Cases, the decision was regarding three similar cases:
- The Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company
- Paul Esteben, L. Ruch, J. P. Rouede, W. Maylie, S. Firmberg, B. Beaubay, William Fagan, J. D. Broderick, N. Seibel, M. Lannes, J. Gitzinger, J. P. Aycock, D. Verges, The Live-Stock Dealers' and Butchers' Association of New Orleans, and Charles Cavaroc v. The State of Louisiana, ex rel. S. Belden, Attorney-General
- The Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company
In 1869, the Louisiana legislature passed a law that allowed the city of New Orleans to create a corporation that centralized all slaughterhouse operations in the city. The purpose of the new arrangement was to restrict the dumping of remains and waste in waterways and provide a single place for animals to be kept and slaughtered. There were a number of provisions in the act creating the company the pertinent being:
- a schedule of prices for the offloading and maintenance of livestock
- a schedule of prices for butchers who want to use the facilities
- a clause describing the process of collecting unpaid monies
- provide for a livestock inspector to ascertain animal health and fitness
Some 100 persons involved in the unloading, feeding, slaughtering, and other activities associated with converting livestock into food filed various actions attempting to halt the creation of the new corporaton and any contemplated changes to the slaughtering business in New Orleans.
The lower courts found in favor of the new corporation in all cases. Some five cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, basing their claims on the due process and equal protection clauses in the new amendment.
In a five-four decision, the court held to a narrow interpretation of the amendment, and held that it did not restrict the 'police powers' of the state. The court also held that the amendment was primarily intended to protect former slaves, and so couldn't be broadly applied.
This case is also referred to in some conspiracy theories involving the extension of government powers. This is because it is one of the first decisions where the courts opinion discussed a form of dual citizenship: State Citizens and U.S. Citizens.
