So, the Slaughter-House Cases are challenges to a slaughtering monopoly that the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana gave to one particular company. Essentially the rationale that the New Orleans government, the Louisiana legislature, had was that all of these butchers killing animals all along the Mississippi River and then taking the carcasses, putting them into the Mississippi River all along the way, this is a health hazard. We want to centralize the butchering in one particular place, try to dispose of all these carcasses in a more orderly way, essentially the rationale that they gave was the same rationale that you have for utilities, for things like the electric company, things like the cable company, things like a railroad. It seems pretty clear that the company who got these exclusive privileges had been corruptly influencing members of the Louisiana legislature. So, we have some butchers who say, "Hey, I am being required to take all of these animals and go to this one particular place and pay these above-market rates, above what it would've been, to these folks for the privilege of being able to slaughter my animal at that one particular place. The butchers said, "The restriction that you're placing on me, preventing me from being a butcher in as free a way as I used to be able to be, this is exactly the same kind of thing that was going on in the black codes from 1865." The black codes were an effort to really lower labor costs and make it easier, even though slavery had been abolished, easier to get below-market rates for labor, for Southern landowners trying to get as much labor out of the African American population as they could for as little money as possible. The butchers in Louisiana say, "By saying that we can't be butchers the way other people can be butchers, that's discrimination against us. We have a right to have the same privileges as all other Americans in Louisiana. We have the right to be butchers and not be subject to this monopoly." The Court says, "Well, that's not what a privilege of citizens of the United States is.” The majority, Justice Miller says, "No. A privilege of citizens of the United States is something that's distinctively federal, like the right to be protected by the federal government when you're in France.” So, this is 5-4 decision, the Slaughter-House Cases. The main dissent by Justice Stephen Field says, "Well, how should we understand the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? We should see it as strongly analogous to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the original Constitution." What did that do? Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the original Constitution said, "If you're the citizen of one state, you have the right to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. When you're a citizen of one state and you go to another state, you have to be treated the way American citizens are treated. You can't have second class citizenship based on soil, based on what state you happen to be from." According to Field, even if a citizen stays home, he's not being treated as an American, treated as a full American citizen if there's unjustified discrimination between that citizen and a fellow citizen. All similarly situated citizens of the United States have to get the same rights. That's Justice Field's interpretation. And he had three justices alongside him in 1873.