BRADWELL v. ILLINOISTOPIC:: EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSEPONENTE

1. Mrs. Myra Bradwell, a US citizen, residing in the State of Illinois, made application to the judges of the Supreme Court of that State for a license to practice law. 2. She accompanied her petition with the usual certificate from an inferior court of her good character, and that on due examination she had been found to possess the requisite qualifications. 3. And with this affidavit she also filed a paper asserting that, under the foregoing facts, she was entitled to the license prayed for by virtue of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, and of the fourteenth article of amendment of that instrument. [83 U.S. 130, 131] 4. The statute of Illinois enacts that no person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney or counsellor-at-law without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from some two of the justices of the Supreme Court 5. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied the application because she was a married woman.6. The claim of the plaintiff, who is a married woman, to be admitted to practice as an attorney and counsellor-at-law, is based upon the supposed right of every person, man or woman, to engage in any lawful employment for a livelihood.7. The Supreme Court of Illinois denied the application on the ground that, by the common law, which is the basis of the laws of Illinois, only men were admitted to the bar, and the legislature had not made any change in this respect.8. Bradwell brought suit against the State of Illinois, alleging that she was being denied one of the Privileges and Immunities of citizenship through refusal to grant a law license after proper application.9. However, Illinois reasoned that the paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. 10. Furthermore, a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counsellor.

ISSUED: May a State, consistent with the Privileges and Immunities clause, deny an otherwise proper application for a license to practice law merely because the applicant is a woman and state law restricts bar membership to men?

HELD: No, the Privileges and Immunities clause does not apply here as the Appellant was a citizen of the State enforcing the law complained of. States have the authority to regulate the practice of law, including denial of licenses to women on the basis of sex.

RATIO:1. The majority began by explaining the Privileges and Immunities clause does not apply here, as that provision only protects citizens of one state from denial of rights by another state. 2. The Court explained that Bradwell was a citizen of Illinois. While she claimed to only reside there, citizens of the United States are citizens of the State in which they reside, unless they can demonstrate another domicile. 3. Responding to the suggestions that certain protections, including the ability to pursue a particular trade, are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States that individual states may not disregard, the Court disagreed.4. The claim that, under the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution, which declares that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, the statute law of Illinois, or the common law prevailing in that State, can no longer be set up as a barrier against the right of females to pursue any lawful employment for a livelihood (the practice of law included), assumes that it is one of the privileges and immunities of women as citizens to engage in any and every profession, occupation, or employment in civil life.5. It certainly cannot be affirmed, as an historical fact, that this has ever been established as one of the fundamental privileges and immunities of the sex. Illinois constitutionally denied law licenses to women, because the right to practice law was not one of the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Illinois Supreme Court affirmed.6. In addition to their earlier explanation of the proper understanding of the constitutional protections at issue, the majority explained that the right to practice law is not a protected privilege. 7. The right of state courts to regulate the granting of law licenses is not one of the state functions transferred to the federal government for protection, and in accordance with precedent the Appellant here did not state a valid claim.