Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper

E15222

Privileges and Immunities Clause case United States Supreme Court case landmark decision

Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state residency requirement for bar admission as unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

AI illustration

All labels observed (3)

Label	Occurrences
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper canonical	5
Supreme Court case Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper	1
Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985)	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T132269 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
Context triple: [Privileges and Immunities Clause, keyCase, Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper]

A. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
B. Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
C. United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
D. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
E. New York v. United States (1992)
New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper
Target entity description: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state residency requirement for bar admission as unconstitutional under the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

A. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
B. Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
C. United States v. Comstock
United States v. Comstock is a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Congress’s authority to civilly commit mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoners beyond their release date under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.
D. Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
E. New York v. United States (1992)
New York v. United States (1992) is a landmark Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs, reinforcing the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (43)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	Privileges and Immunities Clause case ⓘ United States Supreme Court case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ
affectedGroup	nonresident attorneys seeking bar admission ⓘ
areaOfImpact	interstate practice of law ⓘ professional licensing ⓘ
barAdmissionRuleChallenged	New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule requiring state residency for bar admission ⓘ
barredPractice	state residency requirement for admission to the New Hampshire bar ⓘ
citation	470 U.S. 274 ⓘ
constitutionalBasisOfChallenge	Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV ⓘ linked to: Privileges and Immunities Clause
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution ⓘ linked to: Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	1985-03-04 ⓘ
decisionType	plenary decision ⓘ
dissentingJustice	Justice William H. Rehnquist ⓘ linked to: William H. Rehnquist
docketNumber	84-12 ⓘ
holding	A state may not condition bar admission on state residency under the Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ New Hampshire’s residency requirement for bar admission violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ
issue	Whether a state can restrict bar admission to residents of that state ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
languageOfOpinion	English ⓘ
legalSubject	Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ bar admission ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ state residency requirements ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ linked to: Lewis F. Powell Jr.
originatingCourt	Supreme Court of New Hampshire ⓘ
pageInUnitedStatesReports	274 ⓘ
partyTypeInvolved	individual attorney applicant ⓘ state supreme court ⓘ
petitioner	Supreme Court of New Hampshire ⓘ
precedentStatus	binding on all lower federal courts ⓘ binding on state courts on questions of federal law ⓘ
relatedCase	Barnard v. Thorstenn ⓘ Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman ⓘ
relatedDoctrine	substantial reason test under the Privileges and Immunities Clause ⓘ
respondent	Kathryn A. Piper ⓘ
result	New Hampshire residency requirement for bar admission invalidated ⓘ
stateInvolved	New Hampshire ⓘ
volumeInUnitedStatesReports	470 ⓘ
vote	8-1 ⓘ
yearDecided	1985 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (7)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Privileges and Immunities Clause → keyCase → Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper ⓘ

United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden → relatedCase → Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper ⓘ

Barnard v. Thorstenn → relatedCase → Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper ⓘ

Kathryn A. Piper → partyIn → Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper ⓘ

Kathryn A. Piper → associatedCourtDecision → Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985) ⓘ

linked to: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper

Kathryn A. Piper → partyIn → Supreme Court case Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper ⓘ

subject linked to: U.S. Supreme Court ruled in her favor