Scholarship@WashULaw

Document Type

Article

Language

English (en)

Publication Date

2025

Publication Title

Washington University Law Review

Abstract

This Foreword introduces a symposium marking the 150th anniversary of Minor v. Happersett, a Supreme Court decision unanimously holding that the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not enfranchise women. Notwithstanding its impact on the women's suffrage movement and the subsequent ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, Minor presents a puzzle: it is a relatively obscure precedent that remains deeply relevant to contemporary legal debates. To elucidate this point, this Foreword juxtaposes Minor with two notorious Supreme Court decisions: Dred Scott and Dobbs.

Like Dred Scott, Minor pairs a morally repugnant result with legalistic reasoning. But whereas Dred Scott is the quintessential anti-canon case, Minor is a footnote in legal education. On the flip side, Dred Scott was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment, but Minor remains good law. The Nineteenth Amendment merely adopted an anti-discrimination workaround to Minor's holding that suffrage is a not a privilege or immunity of citizenship.

More recently, the Court's decision in Dobbs demonstrates Minor's continuing resonance. Indeed, Dobbs and its aftermath exemplify that the issues contested in Minor in 1875 remain hotly debated today: the rights of citizenship, the role of women in society, and the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Finally, this Foreword briefly summarizes the interdisciplinary papers presented at the conference, covering diverse topics such as election law, feminist studies, legal history, and substantive due process.

Keywords

Legal History, Election Law, Voting Rights, Feminist Legal Studies, Reproductive Justice, Fourteenth Amendment

Publication Citation

Susan Frelich Appleton, Travis Crum & Hannah Keidan, The Curiously Minor Role of Minor v. Happersett (Foreword), 102 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1675 (2025)

Download

Share

COinS