Bradwell v. Illinois
Case Overview
CITATION
ARGUED ON
DECIDED ON
83 U.S. 130
Jan. 18, 1873
Apr. 15, 1873
DECIDED BY
Legal Issue
Is the right to obtain a license to practice law protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding
No, the right to practice law is not a privilege or immunity guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Mary Bradwell, 1897 | Credit Album of Genealogy and Biography, Cook County, Illinois
Background
In 1869, Myra Bradwell passed the state bar exam and submitted her application to the state bar. The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately denied her application, holding that “as a married woman [Bradwell] would be bound neither by her express contracts nor by those implied -contracts which it is the policy of the law to create between attorney and client.” Bradwell appealed the decision, arguing that was unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari.
8 - 1 decision for Illinois
Bradwell
Illinois
Clifford
Davis
Miller
Field
Strong
Hunt
Bradley
Chase
Swayne
-
Writing for the Court, Justice Samuel Freeman Miller held that admission to the state bar is not a privilege or immunity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Miller explained that the right to practice any given profession is not protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause and wrote that “[t]his right in no sense depends on citizenship of the United States.” As a result, states were free to enforce professional regulations. Miller also explained that “the right to control and regulate the granting of license to practice law in the courts of a State is one of those powers which are not transferred for its protection to the Federal government, and its exercise is in no manner governed or controlled by citizenship of the United States in the party seeking such license.”
-
In his brief concurrence, Justice Joseph Bradley focused on the differences between men and women to support his decision. Bradley agreed with the State’s decision to deny Bradwell admission to the bar as a married woman because “a married woman is incapable, without her husband’s consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him.” Bradley was also concerned that allowing women to practice law would lead to them serving in more powerful roles. He wrote, “[t]he humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman’s advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities.” Bradley ultimately concluded that the responsibility of regulating professions lied with the State and were not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
Chief Justice Samuel Chase did not file a dissenting opinion.