Article

Collaborative Intent

Why do parties—even sophisticated ones—draft contracts that are vague or incomplete? Many others have tackled this question, but this Article argues that there is an overlooked, common, and powerful reason for contractual gaps. Using original interviews with dealmakers, it introduces a theory of “collaborative intent” to show that the bureaucratic deal-building process within companies can help explain why contracts are incomplete, vague, and otherwise seemingly irrational. The institutional details of dealmaking are important but understudied, and have wide-ranging implications for contract theory, design, and interpretation.

This Article makes three contributions to the literature. First, using original interviews with in-house dealmakers, it provides the literature’s first account of how deals are made within companies. Both economists and legal scholars have tackled the puzzle of incomplete contracting, but leading explanations overlook the critical influence of companies’ internal deal-building process. Unlike individuals who enter into contracts, sophisticated business parties do not have monolithic intent. Instead, even before taking a seat at the negotiation table, business parties engage in a complex, internal bargaining process that requires many intra-corporate constituencies to weigh in and sign off on the deal. The result is that sophisticated business parties bring multiple agendas to the negotiation table, and those agendas are reflected in the contract. Second, collaboration complicates intent, especially for sophisticated parties. Rather than being the result of rational, considered contract design, contractual gaps may be mere byproducts of the contract-shepherding process within the firm. Finally, this Article offers practical guidance to courts and contract designers about the overlooked and rampant intra-corporate bargaining and pork-barreling process. It helps them account for collaborative intent in ex ante contract design and ex post contract enforcement.

Introduction

Four weeks before Halloween in 2018, a Delaware Chancery Court decision spooked the corporate world. In an unprecedented move, the court released German pharmaceutical giant Fresenius from its $4.75 billion contract to buy U.S. generic drug manufacturer Akorn based on a contract term called the material adverse change clause.1 1.Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, No. CV 2018-0300, 2018 WL 4719347 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2018), aff’d, 198 A.3d 724 (Del. 2018).Show More The decision in Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG was the first time Delaware courts had found that a company triggered a material adverse change clause, and it sparked a storm of anxiety and commentary.2 2.Many major firms issued client alerts, immediately digesting the landmark case for their clients. See, e.g., David Leinwand, James E. Langston & Mark E. McDonald, Akorn v. Fresenius: A MAC in Delaware, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (Oct. 11, 2018), https://www.clearymawatch.com/2018/10/akorn-v-fresenius-mac-delaware [https://perma.cc​/43KW-C54E]; Chris Gorman & Lisa Richards, Akorn v. Fresenius: Important Practical Lessons from First-Ever Material Adverse Effect, Fenwick & West LLP (Oct. 24, 2018), https://www.fenwick.com/publications/pages/akorn-v-fresenius-important-practical-lessons-from-first-ever-material-adverse-effect.aspx [https://perma.cc/9KPX-75MZ]; Peter A. Atkins & Edward B. Micheletti, ‘Reasonable Efforts’ Clauses in Delaware: One Size Fits All, Unless . . ., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Nov. 1, 2018), https://www.​skadden.com/insights/publications/2018/10/reasonable-efforts-clauses-in-delaware [https://p​erma.cc/JR7Z-FYAP]; Grant J. Esposito, David J. Fioccola & Robert W. May, Delaware Court of Chancery Finds a Material Adverse Event and Excuses Buyer from Obligation to Close in Akorn v. Fresenius Kabi AG, Morrison & Foerster LLP (Oct. 9, 2018), https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/181009-delaware-material-adverse-event.html [htt​ps://perma.cc/FE72-NR7Q].Show More

In every merger and acquisition (“M&A”) deal, there is a material adverse change provision: a long-winded, heavily negotiated provision choked with exceptions and caveats. Material adverse change provisions almost always say the same thing: that if something huge and unexpected happens between the contract’s signing and the deal’s closing, one or both parties can back out of the deal.3 3.Albert Choi & George Triantis, Strategic Vagueness in Contract Design: The Case of Corporate Acquisitions, 119 Yale L.J. 848, 854 (2010) [hereinafter Choi & Triantis, Strategic Vagueness](defining a material adverse change clause in a contract as one that “permit[s] the buyer to avoid the closing of a deal if a material change has occurred in the financial condition, assets, liabilities, business, or operations of the target firm”).Show More And, perhaps most surprisingly, despite the long negotiations and dense legalese, material adverse change provisions are vague.4 4.Id. at 853 (noting that material adverse change clauses are vague, but “among the most heavily negotiated nonprice terms”).Show More

Vague provisions like these are common but surprising. In M&A contracts, for example, parties routinely haggle over whether they will use “best efforts,” “commercially reasonable best efforts,” or “reasonable best efforts” to accomplish certain tasks—and each of these standards will be left unspecified and unquantified.5 5.See Scot Baker & Albert Choi, Contract’s Role in Relational Contract, 101 Va. L. Rev. 559, 565 (2015) (describing the common “best efforts” provisions as “a fault-based and open-ended standard”); Anthony J. Casey & Anthony Niblett, Self-Driving Contracts, 43 J. Corp. L. 1, 8 (2017) (“[Parties can choose to] use a vague standard that also requires a court to fill in the details after the fact. This could be a clause that requires something like ‘reasonable efforts,’ ‘best efforts,’ or ‘commercially reasonable efforts.’”); Victor P. Goldberg, In Search of Best Efforts: Reinterpreting Bloor v. Falstaff, 44 St. Louis L. Rev. 1465, 1465 (2000) (“When contracting parties cannot quite define their obligations, they often resort to placeholder language, like ‘best efforts.’”); Robert E. Scott, Contract Design and the Shading Problem, 99 Marq. L. Rev. 1, 20 (2015) (“[I]n the past fifty years, parties have increasingly inserted vague terms such as ‘best efforts,’ reasonable best efforts,’ or ‘commercially reasonable best efforts’ as modifiers that are combined with specific of precise performance obligations under the contract.”). The contracts law case Bloor v. Falstaff, 601 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1979), is another famous case about best efforts clauses.Show More In debt contracts, borrowers promise to let lenders conduct “routine” inspections, without specifying what is routine.6 6.In A. Gay Jenson Farms Co. v. Cargill, 309 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. 1981), the well-known agency law case, for example, large international conglomerate Cargill lent money to a small Minnesota grain elevator operator, in part on the condition that Cargill could conduct routine inspections of the grain elevator. The intrusive nature of the inspections became one of the reasons that the grain elevator operator’s other creditors later sued Cargill, arguing that the grain elevator operator was an agent of Cargill and that Cargill should be liable for the operator’s debts. Id. at 290–91.Show More In just about any corporate contract, parties promise “material” compliance or compliance that does not rise to a “material adverse effect,” again without specifying what those thresholds might mean.7 7.Robert Malionek & Jon Weichselbaum, Five Keys to Analyzing a Material Adverse Effect, N.Y.L.J. (Mar. 6, 2019), https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/five-keys-analyzing-materia​l-adverse-effect-ny-law-journal [https://perma.cc/TM95-FQKH] (noting that “[m]ateriality is both qualitative and quantitative” and that in M&A contracts, representations can be made “that reasonably would be expected to result in [a material adverse change]”).Show More In each of these circumstances, sophisticated parties, who have both the technical sophistication and financial means to draft specific, complete provisions, choose instead to embrace vague, incomplete ones.

The persistence of vague provisions, incomplete contracts, and other such contractual oddities has long plagued both legal scholars and economists—and neither literature has a shortage of explanations. Economist and Nobel Prize laureate Oliver Hart famously notes that contracts are necessarily incomplete: there are no parties, no circumstances, where every contingency can be thought of and thought out ex ante.8 8.See Oliver Hart, The Nobel Prize, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/​2016/hart/facts/ [https://perma.cc/E6MG-HZY4] (last visited Nov. 10, 2021) (“In the mid-1980s, [Hart] contributed to the theory of incomplete contracts. . . . These analyses have been significant for, among other things, governance of companies and the design of laws and institutions.”); Oliver Hart & John Moore, Foundations of Incomplete Contracts, 66 Rev. Econ. Stud. 115 (1999) [hereinafter Hart & Moore, Foundations of Incomplete Contracts](developing a model for the idea that contracts are incomplete); Oliver D. Hart, Incomplete Contracts and the Theory of the Firm, 4 J.L. Econ. & Org. 119 (1988); Oliver Hart, Dep’t of Econ., Harvard Univ., Incomplete Contracts and Control, Nobel Prize Lecture 372–73 (Dec. 8. 2016), https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/hart-lecture.pdf [https://perma.cc/7TK​E-49TD] [hereinafter Hart, Incomplete Contracts & Control](noting that, although economists spent many decades working on questions involving complete contracts, “[a]ctual contracts are not like this, as lawyers have recognized for some time. They are poorly worded, ambiguous, and leave out important things. They are incomplete.”).Show More Many scholars have argued convincingly that vagueness in contracts—especially in contracts between sophisticated business parties—is intentional and rational: provisions that are rarely litigated but expensive to negotiate, such as material adverse effect provisions, are particularly well-suited to vagueness.9 9.Choi & Triantis, Strategic Vagueness, supra note 3, at 852–53, 855 (arguing that parties can use vague contract provisions efficiently—for example, material adverse change clauses in acquisition agreements may remain vague because they are rarely litigated); Robert E. Scott & George G. Triantis, Anticipating Litigation in Contract Design, 115 Yale L.J. 814, 818–22 (2006) [hereinafter Scott & Triantis, Anticipating Litigation] (examining the efficiency of investment in the design and enforcement phases of the contracting process and arguing that parties can lower overall contracting costs by using vague contract terms ex ante and shifting investment to the ex post enforcement phase); Robert E. Scott & George G. Triantis, Incomplete Contracts and the Theory of Contract Design, 56 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 187, 195–96 (2005) (considering the role of litigation in motivating contract design).Show More Still others have argued that contracts do not need to be complete or specific. Community and industry norms can and do fill the gap where contracts are vague—and sometimes even when contracts do not even exist.10 10.See Ronald J. Gilson, Charles Sabel & Robert E. Scott, Braiding: The Interaction of Formal and Informal Contracting in Theory, Practice, and Doctrine, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1377, 1398–99 (2010) [hereinafter Gilson et al., Braiding] (discussing the “rivalry” between formal and informal enforcement for contracts and noting that the two can substitute for each other or complement each other); see also Lisa Bernstein, Opting Out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the Diamond Industry, 21 J. Legal Stud. 115, 121–24 (1992) [hereinafter Bernstein, Opting Out] (describing trade association enforcement of contractual breaches); Lisa Bernstein, Private Commercial Law in the Cotton Industry: Creating Cooperation Through Rules, Norms, and Institutions, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 1724, 1725 (2001) (describing the cotton industry’s alternative system of enforcement to the typical legal system).Show More And, in those cases, it is the threat of informal sanctions, such as loss of reputation, that curbs bad behavior, even without a legally binding contract.11 11.Informal sanctions are particularly effective in small, tight-knit communities where parties have many points of contact. A robust literature has documented the role of norms and informal sanctions in a variety of interesting settings. See Robert C. Ellickson, Of Coase and Cattle: Dispute Resolution Among Neighbors in Shasta County, 38 Stan. L. Rev. 623, 628, 677 (1986) [hereinafter Ellickson, Of Coase and Cattle] (describing how rural cattle ranchers in Shasta County, California, abide by norms rather than rules and how animal trespass disputes are settled by self-help rather than formal legal enforcement mechanisms); Robert C. Ellickson, A Hypothesis of Wealth-Maximizing Norms: Evidence from the Whaling Industry, 5 J.L. Econ. & Org. 83, 84–85 (1989) (presenting evidence of informal enforcement—norms—overtaking formal enforcement in the whaling industry); Peter T. Leeson, An-arrgh-chy: The Law and Economics of Pirate Organization, 115 J. Pol. Econ. 1049, 1051 (2007) (describing the extralegal systems that pirates developed to provide checks on captain predation and to “create piratical law and order”); Bernstein, Opting Out, supra note 10, at 124 (describing how a diamond-merchant trade association in New York City helps to enforce contracts); Gillian K. Hadfield & Iva Bozovic, Scaffolding: Using Formal Contracts to Support Informal Relations in Support of Innovation, 2016 Wis. L. Rev. 981, 987, 1017 (describing the way in which commercial contracting parties across a variety of industries use a mix of formal and informal contracts to support their business relationships); Lisa Bernstein, Beyond Relational Contracts: Social Capital and Network Governance in Procurement Contracts, 7 J. Legal Analysis 561, 562 (2015) (describing how original equipment manufacturers in the Midwest have used a mix of formal contracts, relational contracts, and other tools to build and support their business relationships); Jonathan M. Barnett, Hollywood Deals: Soft Contracts for Hard Markets, 64 Duke L.J. 605, 607 (2015) (discussing the use of non-binding agreements—or “soft contracts”—in modern Hollywood filmmaking).Show More

In many contexts, these explanations are convincing. Consider a simple apartment lease signed between one landlord and one tenant. Rather than spending a lot of time up-front discussing the specific condition in which the tenant needs to leave the apartment at move-out, the parties might simply decide to agree to the vague provision that the tenant needs to leave the apartment “clean.” The law and economics view explains this decision well: in most cases, the tenant leaves the place clean enough, and the parties will never have to haggle over the details upon move-out. Relational contracting theory also explains the vagueness well: the landlord doesn’t need to be too specific about cleanliness because the tenant relies on the landlord to give her a good reference for her next apartment rental.

But while existing explanations work well for simple, two-party contracts, and do some work in explaining sophisticated-party contracting, they fall short.12 12.In previous work, for example, I explored the puzzle of term sheets in M&A contracting. Term sheets—short, nonbinding precursors to a full-fledged M&A contract—are not contracts and are not legally binding or enforceable. Parties to term sheets do not operate in the tight-knit communities where informal sanctions are known to work. Nonetheless, once parties sign them, they behave as though bonded. Why do nonbinding term sheets have binding power? See Cathy Hwang, Deal Momentum, 65 UCLA L. Rev. 376, 380 (2018) (describing how deal lawyers use preliminary agreements in M&A deals); Cathy Hwang, Faux Contracts, 105 Va. L. Rev. 1025, 1056 (2019) [hereinafter, Hwang, Faux Contracts] (describing how M&A deals create small relational ecosystems in which both the contracting parties and their agents are incentivized to engage in consummate, rather than perfunctory, performance).Show More Certainly cost-benefit analysis and informal sanctions account for some contractual oddities—but not all. This Article offers a friendly addendum to those pathbreaking explanations: collaborative intent.

At its core, collaborative intent relies on a simple idea: businesses are not monoliths. They contain many divisions, departments, operational groups, and other constituencies. This idea is well-understood in the literature—even Ronald Coase’s seminal work on the boundary of the firm assumed that companies would contain multiple different groups within it.13 13.Ronald H. Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 16 Economica 386, 390 (1937) (posing and discussing the “boundaries of the firm” question: When should individuals be expected to form firms, and when should they be expected to cooperate through contract?).Show More Collaborative intent takes this idea a step further: it explicitly recognizes that each module within a company has its own purpose and, correspondingly, its own incentives, goals, limitations, and preferences. Internal constituencies often have a chance to veto—or at least weigh in on—both the substance and form of a proposed deal. By the time a company brings its intent to the negotiating table, that intent reflects the result of a consensus-building process within the company—in other words, the company brings what this Article calls its collaborative intent.

That collaborative intent in turn helps to account for many contractual oddities. Contracts that result from this kind of institutional collaboration are not necessarily rational, intentional, or carefully considered. Instead, they are amalgamations of many preferences within each deal party and result from the consensus-building process of getting the deal through a bureaucracy.

This Article provides a layered account of collaborative intent and its impact on deals and contracts, and proceeds as follows. Part I sets the stage. It shows how current contract theory does not account for the dealmaking process within firms. Part II presents the theory and evidence of collaborative intent. It uses two dozen original interviews with in-house dealmakers to show how the process of building consensus for a deal within the firm impacts contractual form and structure. Interview participants brought experience from a variety of industries, ranging from technology to hospitality to gaming, and uniformly reported that dealmaking within the firm is a collaborative exercise: it requires vote-whipping, pork-barreling, and balancing the needs of various constituencies into a coherent but multifaceted “intent.” Part III turns to implications. Existing literature overlooks the institutional details that impact contract design. Collaborative intent injects important and overlooked nuance and helps to build out a nuanced account of dealmaking that can help shape contract theory, enforcement, and design.

  1. Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, No. CV 2018-0300, 2018 WL 4719347 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2018), aff’d, 198 A.3d 724 (Del. 2018). ↑
  2. Many major firms issued client alerts, immediately digesting the landmark case for their clients. See, e.g., David Leinwand, James E. Langston & Mark E. McDonald, Akorn v. Fresenius: A MAC in Delaware, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (Oct. 11, 2018), https://www.clearymawatch.com/2018/10/akorn-v-fresenius-mac-delaware [https://perma.cc​/43KW-C54E]; Chris Gorman & Lisa Richards, Akorn v. Fresenius: Important Practical Lessons from First-Ever Material Adverse Effect, Fenwick & West LLP (Oct. 24, 2018), https://www.fenwick.com/publications/pages/akorn-v-fresenius-important-practical-lessons-from-first-ever-material-adverse-effect.aspx [https://perma.cc/9KPX-75MZ]; Peter A. Atkins & Edward B. Micheletti, ‘Reasonable Efforts’ Clauses in Delaware: One Size Fits All, Unless . . ., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Nov. 1, 2018), https://www.​skadden.com/insights/publications/2018/10/reasonable-efforts-clauses-in-delaware [https://p​erma.cc/JR7Z-FYAP]; Grant J. Esposito, David J. Fioccola & Robert W. May, Delaware Court of Chancery Finds a Material Adverse Event and Excuses Buyer from Obligation to Close in Akorn v. Fresenius Kabi AG, Morrison & Foerster LLP (Oct. 9, 2018), https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/181009-delaware-material-adverse-event.html [htt​ps://perma.cc/FE72-NR7Q]. ↑
  3. Albert Choi & George Triantis, Strategic Vagueness in Contract Design: The Case of Corporate Acquisitions, 119 Yale L.J. 848, 854 (2010) [hereinafter Choi & Triantis, Strategic Vagueness] (defining a material adverse change clause in a contract as one that “permit[s] the buyer to avoid the closing of a deal if a material change has occurred in the financial condition, assets, liabilities, business, or operations of the target firm”). ↑
  4. Id. at 853 (noting that material adverse change clauses are vague, but “among the most heavily negotiated nonprice terms”). ↑
  5. See Scot Baker & Albert Choi, Contract’s Role in Relational Contract, 101 Va. L. Rev. 559, 565 (2015) (describing the common “best efforts” provisions as “a fault-based and open-ended standard”); Anthony J. Casey & Anthony Niblett, Self-Driving Contracts, 43 J. Corp. L. 1, 8 (2017) (“[Parties can choose to] use a vague standard that also requires a court to fill in the details after the fact. This could be a clause that requires something like ‘reasonable efforts,’ ‘best efforts,’ or ‘commercially reasonable efforts.’”); Victor P. Goldberg, In Search of Best Efforts: Reinterpreting Bloor v. Falstaff, 44 St. Louis L. Rev. 1465, 1465 (2000) (“When contracting parties cannot quite define their obligations, they often resort to placeholder language, like ‘best efforts.’”); Robert E. Scott, Contract Design and the Shading Problem, 99 Marq. L. Rev. 1, 20 (2015) (“[I]n the past fifty years, parties have increasingly inserted vague terms such as ‘best efforts,’ reasonable best efforts,’ or ‘commercially reasonable best efforts’ as modifiers that are combined with specific of precise performance obligations under the contract.”). The contracts law case Bloor v. Falstaff, 601 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1979), is another famous case about best efforts clauses. ↑
  6. In A. Gay Jenson Farms Co. v. Cargill, 309 N.W.2d 285 (Minn. 1981), the well-known agency law case, for example, large international conglomerate Cargill lent money to a small Minnesota grain elevator operator, in part on the condition that Cargill could conduct routine inspections of the grain elevator. The intrusive nature of the inspections became one of the reasons that the grain elevator operator’s other creditors later sued Cargill, arguing that the grain elevator operator was an agent of Cargill and that Cargill should be liable for the operator’s debts. Id. at 290–91. ↑
  7. Robert Malionek & Jon Weichselbaum, Five Keys to Analyzing a Material Adverse Effect, N.Y.L.J. (Mar. 6, 2019), https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/five-keys-analyzing-materia​l-adverse-effect-ny-law-journal [https://perma.cc/TM95-FQKH] (noting that “[m]ateriality is both qualitative and quantitative” and that in M&A contracts, representations can be made “that reasonably would be expected to result in [a material adverse change]”). ↑
  8. See Oliver Hart, The Nobel Prize, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/​2016/hart/facts/ [https://perma.cc/E6MG-HZY4] (last visited Nov. 10, 2021) (“In the mid-1980s, [Hart] contributed to the theory of incomplete contracts. . . . These analyses have been significant for, among other things, governance of companies and the design of laws and institutions.”); Oliver Hart & John Moore, Foundations of Incomplete Contracts, 66 Rev. Econ. Stud. 115 (1999) [hereinafter Hart & Moore, Foundations of Incomplete Contracts] (developing a model for the idea that contracts are incomplete); Oliver D. Hart, Incomplete Contracts and the Theory of the Firm, 4 J.L. Econ. & Org. 119 (1988); Oliver Hart, Dep’t of Econ., Harvard Univ., Incomplete Contracts and Control, Nobel Prize Lecture 372–73 (Dec. 8. 2016), https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/hart-lecture.pdf [https://perma.cc/7TK​E-49TD] [hereinafter Hart, Incomplete Contracts & Control] (noting that, although economists spent many decades working on questions involving complete contracts, “[a]ctual contracts are not like this, as lawyers have recognized for some time. They are poorly worded, ambiguous, and leave out important things. They are incomplete.”). ↑
  9. Choi & Triantis, Strategic Vagueness, supra note 3, at 852–53, 855 (arguing that parties can use vague contract provisions efficiently—for example, material adverse change clauses in acquisition agreements may remain vague because they are rarely litigated); Robert E. Scott & George G. Triantis, Anticipating Litigation in Contract Design, 115 Yale L.J. 814, 818–22 (2006) [hereinafter Scott & Triantis, Anticipating Litigation] (examining the efficiency of investment in the design and enforcement phases of the contracting process and arguing that parties can lower overall contracting costs by using vague contract terms ex ante and shifting investment to the ex post enforcement phase); Robert E. Scott & George G. Triantis, Incomplete Contracts and the Theory of Contract Design, 56 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 187, 195–96 (2005) (considering the role of litigation in motivating contract design). ↑
  10. See Ronald J. Gilson, Charles Sabel & Robert E. Scott, Braiding: The Interaction of Formal and Informal Contracting in Theory, Practice, and Doctrine, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1377, 1398–99 (2010) [hereinafter Gilson et al., Braiding] (discussing the “rivalry” between formal and informal enforcement for contracts and noting that the two can substitute for each other or complement each other); see also Lisa Bernstein, Opting Out of the Legal System: Extralegal Contractual Relations in the Diamond Industry, 21 J. Legal Stud. 115, 121–24 (1992) [hereinafter Bernstein, Opting Out] (describing trade association enforcement of contractual breaches); Lisa Bernstein, Private Commercial Law in the Cotton Industry: Creating Cooperation Through Rules, Norms, and Institutions, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 1724, 1725 (2001) (describing the cotton industry’s alternative system of enforcement to the typical legal system). ↑
  11. Informal sanctions are particularly effective in small, tight-knit communities where parties have many points of contact. A robust literature has documented the role of norms and informal sanctions in a variety of interesting settings. See Robert C. Ellickson, Of Coase and Cattle: Dispute Resolution Among Neighbors in Shasta County, 38 Stan. L. Rev. 623, 628, 677 (1986) [hereinafter Ellickson, Of Coase and Cattle] (describing how rural cattle ranchers in Shasta County, California, abide by norms rather than rules and how animal trespass disputes are settled by self-help rather than formal legal enforcement mechanisms); Robert C. Ellickson, A Hypothesis of Wealth-Maximizing Norms: Evidence from the Whaling Industry, 5 J.L. Econ. & Org. 83, 84–85 (1989) (presenting evidence of informal enforcement—norms—overtaking formal enforcement in the whaling industry); Peter T. Leeson, An-arrgh-chy: The Law and Economics of Pirate Organization, 115 J. Pol. Econ. 1049, 1051 (2007) (describing the extralegal systems that pirates developed to provide checks on captain predation and to “create piratical law and order”); Bernstein, Opting Out, supra note 10, at 124 (describing how a diamond-merchant trade association in New York City helps to enforce contracts); Gillian K. Hadfield & Iva Bozovic, Scaffolding: Using Formal Contracts to Support Informal Relations in Support of Innovation, 2016 Wis. L. Rev. 981, 987, 1017 (describing the way in which commercial contracting parties across a variety of industries use a mix of formal and informal contracts to support their business relationships); Lisa Bernstein, Beyond Relational Contracts: Social Capital and Network Governance in Procurement Contracts, 7 J. Legal Analysis 561, 562 (2015) (describing how original equipment manufacturers in the Midwest have used a mix of formal contracts, relational contracts, and other tools to build and support their business relationships); Jonathan M. Barnett, Hollywood Deals: Soft Contracts for Hard Markets, 64 Duke L.J. 605, 607 (2015) (discussing the use of non-binding agreements—or “soft contracts”—in modern Hollywood filmmaking). ↑
  12. In previous work, for example, I explored the puzzle of term sheets in M&A contracting. Term sheets—short, nonbinding precursors to a full-fledged M&A contract—are not contracts and are not legally binding or enforceable. Parties to term sheets do not operate in the tight-knit communities where informal sanctions are known to work. Nonetheless, once parties sign them, they behave as though bonded. Why do nonbinding term sheets have binding power? See Cathy Hwang, Deal Momentum, 65 UCLA L. Rev. 376, 380 (2018) (describing how deal lawyers use preliminary agreements in M&A deals); Cathy Hwang, Faux Contracts, 105 Va. L. Rev. 1025, 1056 (2019) [hereinafter, Hwang, Faux Contracts] (describing how M&A deals create small relational ecosystems in which both the contracting parties and their agents are incentivized to engage in consummate, rather than perfunctory, performance). ↑

  13. Ronald H. Coase, The Nature of the Firm, 16 Economica 386, 390 (1937) (posing and discussing the “boundaries of the firm” question: When should individuals be expected to form firms, and when should they be expected to cooperate through contract?). ↑

Frankenstein’s Baby: The Forgotten History of Corporations, Race, and Equal Protection

This Article highlights the crucial role corporations played in crafting an expansive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Exposing the role of race in the history of the constitutional law of corporate personhood for the first time, this Article argues that corporations were instrumental in laying the foundation of the Equal Protection Clause that underlies civil rights jurisprudence today. By simultaneously bringing cases involving both corporations and Chinese immigrants, corporate lawyers and sympathetic federal judges crafted a broad interpretation of equal protection in order to draw a through-line from African Americans, to Chinese immigrants, and finally to corporate shareholders. At the same time that corporate litigation expanded the umbrella of protected “persons,” however, it limited the capacity of the Fourteenth Amendment to address issues of substantive inequality.

This Article reveals that central to the argument in favor of corporate constitutional personhood was a direct analogy between corporate shareholders and racial minorities. This Article thus highlights the intersection of corporate personhood and race, a connection that has rarely, if ever, been explored. Corporate lawyers’ expansive interpretation of equal protection ultimately triumphed in the Supreme Court with the twin cases of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a bedrock of modern civil rights doctrine, and Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, a case credited with extending equal protection rights to corporations. This is the first Article to juxtapose these two seminal cases and to expose the deep and long-standing connections between them. In so doing, this Article uncovers a neglected history of the link between corporations and race, as well as a lost history of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Introduction

“Like Frankenstein’s baby, there was no end to its growing, and no limit to its voracity. And, like that wonderful child, it started in to devour its author.”

– Records of the California Constitutional Convention (1878)

“The Fourteenth Amendment . . . stands in the constitution as a perpetual shield against all unequal and partial legislation by the states, and the injustice which follows from it, whether directed against the most humble or the most powerful; against the despised laborer from China, or the envied master of millions.”

– The Railroad Tax Cases (9th Cir. 1882)

Since the controversial cases of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission1 1.558 U.S. 310 (2010).Show More and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby,2 2.573 U.S. 682 (2014).Show More which recognized the political speech and religious freedom rights of corporations,3 3.In Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law, 2 U.S.C. § 441b (2006), that banned direct corporate spending on political campaigns. 558 U.S. at 372. Citizens United was part of a long line of cases in which the Court had recognized the First Amendment rights of corporations, including: NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 459 (1958) (freedom of association); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 428–29 (1963) (freedom of expression and association); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 264 (1964) (freedom of speech and the press); and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784 (1978) (campaign expenditures as political speech). Hobby Lobby concluded that corporations were “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb–1, and held that Health and Human Services regulations requiring employers to provide insurance that covered contraceptives unconstitutionally burdened closely held corporations’ exercise of religion. 573 U.S. at 736.Show More respectively, activist groups have been lobbying for a constitutional amendment to eliminate corporate constitutional personhood.4 4.See Move to Amend, https://www.movetoamend.org/ [https://perma.cc/RH9L-2FZT] (last visited Aug. 19, 2020); United for the People, http://united4thepeople.org/ [https://perma.cc/XS9X-LZNR] (last visited Aug. 19, 2020).Show More Granting corporations constitutional rights, they argue, gives powerful mega-corporations even greater means to avoid regulation and manipulate elections, thus threatening “the democratic promise of America.”5 5.United for the People, supra note 4; Move to Amend, supra note 4. See Joanna M. Meyer, The Real Error in Citizens United, 69 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 2171, 2198 (2012).Show More In 2019, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) introduced a bill to provide that “the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only” and that corporations “shall have no rights under this Constitution.”6 6.H.R.J. Res. 48, 116th Cong. (2019) (proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only). Other bills introduced in both the House and the Senate have targeted specific constitutional rights, such as one “waiving the application of the first article of amendment to the political speech of corporations.” H.R.J. Res. 39, 116th Cong. (2019). See United for the People, http://united4thepeople.org/amendments/ (last visited Oct. 31, 2021) [https://perma.cc/QGU7-883U], for an up-to-date list of proposed amendments relating to corporate constitutional rights.Show More Supporters of this amendment showcase buttons and bumper stickers that proclaim: “Corporations are not People!”7 7.See Move to Amend, https://move-to-amend.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage [https://perma.cc/8JVP-CYAD] (last visited Dec. 28, 2021).Show More

Corporate constitutional rights have been debated since the early years of the American Republic.8 8.For early cases debating the constitutional rights of corporations, see Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 61, 63–64 (1809); Hope Insurance Co. of Providence v. Boardman, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 57, 58 (1809); Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 43, 46–47 (1815); Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 518, 556 (1819); Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Peters) 420, 421 (1837); and Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railroad Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. (2 Howard) 497, 499 (1844). See also Adam Winkler, We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights, at xxi (2018) (describing how the country’s most powerful corporations have persistently tried to use the Constitution to evade unwanted government regulations); Margaret M. Blair & Elizabeth Pollman, The Derivative Nature of Corporate Constitutional Rights, 56 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1673, 1680 (2015) (explaining how the Supreme Court was tasked with determining the applicability of constitutional provisions to corporations in an 1809 case involving the first Bank of the United States).Show More Missing from histories of corporate personhood, however, is the central role that race played in the development of corporate constitutional rights.9 9.Legal historians of corporate personhood have discussed corporate Fourteenth Amendment cases in some detail but have neglected the role that race played in the development of these cases. For representative writings on corporate personhood and constitutional rights, see Morton J. Horwitz, Santa Clara Revisited: The Development of Corporate Theory, 88 W. Va. L. Rev. 173, 174 (1985); Blair & Pollman, supra note 8, at 1677; Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, Citizens United and the Corporate Form, 2010 Wis. L. Rev. 999, 1033–34; Gregory A. Mark, The Personification of the Business Corporation in American Law, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1441, 1443 (1987); Herbert Hovenkamp, The Classical Corporation in American Legal Thought, 76 Geo. L.J. 1593, 1640–41 (1988); David K. Millon, Theories of the Corporation, 1990 Duke L.J. 201, 205–07; Elizabeth Pollman, Reconceiving Corporate Personhood, 2011 Utah L. Rev. 1629, 1630; Margaret M. Blair, Corporate Personhood and the Corporate Persona, 2013 U. Ill. L. Rev. 785, 796–97; Kent Greenfield, In Defense of Corporate Persons, 30 Const. Comment. 309, 310–12 (2015); Tamara R. Piety, Why Personhood Matters, 30 Const. Comment. 361, 362–63 (2015); Turkuler Isiksel, Corporations as Rights-Bearers, J. Pol. (forthcoming) (manuscript at 1–2) (on file with the author).Show More This Article uncovers this link by highlighting the strategy of a group of corporate lawyers and Ninth Circuit10 10.At the time, the Circuit Court for the District of California, where the cases discussed in this Article arose, was located in the federal circuit encompassing California and Oregon. This court exercised both original and appellate jurisdiction and was staffed by one Supreme Court Justice (Stephen Field), one circuit court judge (Lorenzo Sawyer), and one district court judge (Ogden Hoffman), any two of which could hear a case. Christian G. Fritz, Federal Justice in California: The Court of Ogden Hoffman, 1851–1891, at 29–30 (1991). To avoid confusion, this Article follows contemporary scholarship that refers to these cases as occurring in the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 29; Howard J. Graham, Everyman’s Constitution: Historical Essays on the Fourteenth Amendment, the “Conspiracy Theory,” and American Constitutionalism 573 (1968); Winkler, supra note 8, at 153–54. However, this should not be confused with the modern-day U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was not created until the federal appellate system was redesigned in 1891. Joshua Glick, On the Road: The Supreme Court and the History of Circuit Riding, 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1753, 1826 (2003).Show More judges to expand the Fourteenth Amendment using cases involving both corporations and race. As this Article reveals, modern ideas about corporate personhood are predicated on a historical analogy between corporate shareholders and racial minorities.11 11.A growing area of scholarship explores the connections between corporations and race. See, e.g., Cheryl L. Wade, Attempting to Discuss Race in Business and Corporate Law Courses and Seminars, 77 St. John’s L. Rev. 901 (2003); Alfred Dennis Mathewson, Race in Ordinary Course: Utilizing the Racial Background in Antitrust and Corporate Law Courses, 23 St. John’s J. Legal Comment. 667, 685 (2008); Cheryl L. Wade, Introduction to Symposium on People of Color, Women, and the Public Corporation: The Sophistication of Discrimination, 79 St. John’s L. Rev. 887, 890 (2005); Thomas W. Joo, Corporate Hierarchy and Racial Justice, 79 St. John’s L. Rev. 955 (2005); Thomas W. Joo, Race, Corporate Law, and Shareholder Value, 54 J. Legal Ed. 351 (2004); Juliet E.K. Walker, White Corporate America: The New Arbiter of Race? in Constructing Corporate America: History, Politics, Culture, 246, 253, 260 (Kenneth Lipartito & David B. Sicilia eds., 2007).Show More Yet racial analogies not only helped corporations gain constitutional rights; corporations themselves created constitutional guarantees that ultimately protected racial minorities. This neglected history shows that corporations have been crucial players in shaping rights guarantees—particularly an expansive interpretation of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment—that apply to individuals as well. In revealing these complex interconnections, this Article exposes the multifaceted legacy of litigation over corporate personhood in the development of modern equal protection jurisprudence.

This Article juxtaposes two seminal cases, decided on the same day in 1886 and brought by the same lawyers: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,12 12.118 U.S. 394 (1886).Show More credited with establishing corporate Fourteenth Amendment rights,13 13.See Horwitz, supra note 9, at 173; Blair & Pollman, supra note 8, at 1694–95; Avi-Yonah, supra note 9, at 1033–34.Show More and Yick Wo v. Hopkins,14 14.118 U.S. 356 (1886).Show More a touchstone of modern civil rights jurisprudence.15 15.See 2 Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties 482, 1055 (Kara E. Stooksbury, John M. Scheb, II & Otis H Stephens, Jr. eds., rev. and expanded ed. 2017); Peter Irons, Jim Crow’s Children: The Broken Promise of the Brown Decision 53 (2004); see also infra notes 327–35 (noting early civil rights cases citing Yick Wo).Show More This Article uncovers the conjoined history of these two Fourteenth Amendment cases, one involving a corporation and the other a Chinese immigrant, and their antecedents.16 16.Scholars have studied the connection between Fourteenth Amendment claims of Chinese immigrants and the Supreme Court’s desire to protect economic rights. See Thomas Wuil Joo, New “Conspiracy Theory” of the Fourteenth Amendment: Nineteenth Century Chinese Civil Rights Cases and the Development of Substantive Due Process Jurisprudence, 29 U.S.F. L. Rev. 353, 354–55 (1995); Thomas W. Joo, Yick Wo Re-Revisited: Nonblack Nonwhites and Fourteenth Amendment History, 2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1427, 1428; Charles McClain, Jr., In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle Against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America 83 (1994); Graham, supra note 10, at 15; Daniel W. Levy, Classical Lawyers and the Southern Pacific Railroad, 9 W. Legal Hist. 177, 211, 216 (1996); Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age 209 (1997); Winkler, supra note 8, at 153. However, no prior scholarship has specifically examined the intersection of Fourteenth Amendment claims by corporations and by Chinese immigrants.Show More Drawing on little-known archival sources, it traces how the same coterie of corporate lawyers simultaneously brought Fourteenth Amendment cases involving Chinese and corporate litigants before the sympathetic Ninth Circuit in order to strategically craft a broad interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause that applied to all “persons,” natural and artificial alike.17 17.See In re Ah Fong, 1 F. Cas. 213, 213 (C.C.D. Cal. 1874) (No. 102); Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 F. Cas. 252, 252 (C.C.D. Cal. 1879) (No. 6,546); In re Ah Chong, 2 F. 733, 737 (C.C.D. Cal. 1880); In re Tiburcio Parrott, 1 F. 481, 482 (C.C.D. Cal. 1880); The Railroad Tax Cases, 13 F. 722, 727 (C.C.D. Cal. 1882); In re Quong Woo, 13 F. 229, 233 (C.C.D. Cal. 1882); County of Santa Clara v. S. Pac. R.R. Co., 18 F. 385, 386, 397 (C.C.D. Cal. 1883), aff’d, 118 U.S. 394 (1886); In re Yick Wo, 9 P. 139, 139 (Cal. 1885), rev’d sub nom. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); In re Wo Lee, 26 F. 471, 475 (C.C.D. Cal. 1886).Show More Although in the Slaughter-House Cases the Supreme Court had suggested that it would read the Fourteenth Amendment narrowly,18 18.Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 80–81 (1873).Show More in Yick Wo and Santa Clara the Court changed course and adopted the Ninth Circuit’s expansive interpretation of equal protection, a doctrinal shift with lasting effects today.

This is not a story of unintended consequences. By expanding the scope of the Equal Protection Clause to include Chinese immigrants, corporate lawyers were able to use the Chinese cases to draw a through-line from African Americans—the original beneficiaries of the Fourteenth Amendment—to Chinese immigrants, to corporate shareholders.19 19.The social and political connections of Chinese “coolies” with railroad and mining corporations in the context of Greater Reconstruction debates over the meaning of “free labor” and “equality” are explored in Evelyn Atkinson, Slaves, Coolies, and Shareholders: Corporations Claim the Fourteenth Amendment, 10 J. Civ. War Era 54 (2020).Show More This comparison was made possible because corporate lawyers and federal judges intentionally portrayed the corporation as simply an aggregate of rights-bearing shareholders who did not forsake their constitutional rights when they joined the corporation. In this framing, shareholders were members of a persecuted group, the same as racial minorities.

This view of the corporation as solely an aggregate of rights-bearing shareholders was at odds with an older common law vision of the corporation as both an aggregate of individuals and a separate legal person with special rights and duties distinct from those of “natural” persons.20 20.See John Dewey, The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality, 35 Yale L.J. 655, 656 (1926); 3 The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland 307 (H. A. L. Fisher ed., 1911).Show More In Part I below, this Article exposes a contour of common law corporate personhood that has not previously been noted: incorporation was a status in which corporate legal persons existed in a hierarchical relationship with the public, akin to master-servant or parent-child.21 21.See discussion infra Part I.Show More The common law view of the corporation as a “child” or “servant” of the public justified more stringent state regulation of corporations than of individuals: the state was the benevolent parent, overseeing its corporate child to ensure the corporation acted in the public interest.22 22.William Novak discusses the extensive power of state legislatures to regulate in the “public interest” in William J. Novak, The People’s Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America 19–20 (1996).Show More

Yet as Part II discusses, throughout the nineteenth century, corporate lawyers challenged this view, arguing that corporations were not “children” who owed a special duty of obedience to the parental state but private, profit-making entities whose interests were unrelated or even potentially opposed to those of the public. In this view, the corporation was a naturally arising market phenomenon, akin to any other private market actor, with no special obligation to the public welfare.23 23.This has been called the “natural” or “real entity” theory of the corporation, that corporations are naturally emerging market entities controlled by their managers. See Avi-Yonah, supra note 9, at 1000–01; Blair, supra note 9, at 805; Pollman, supra note 9, at 1642; Arthur W. Machen, Jr., Corporate Personality, 24 Harv. L. Rev 253, 262 (1911).Show More In support of this argument, corporate lawyers reframed the corporation not as a group of individuals authorized to act as one “artificial,” “legal person” for certain purposes, but as solely an aggregation of constitutional-rights-bearing shareholders.24 24.This is called the “aggregate” or “associational” theory. See Horwitz, supra note 9, at 182; Mark, supra note 9, at 1462; Hovenkamp, supra note 9, at 1597–98; Pollman, supra note 9, at 1662. Morton Horwitz argues that the aggregate theory was short-lived because of the increasing separation of management and control and that the “entity” theory replaced the aggregate theory in the early twentieth century. Horwitz, supra note 9, at 182. However, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and other recent cases have invoked an aggregate view of the corporation to justify extending freedom of speech and religion to corporations. See Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 356 (2010) (“Yet certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate form—are penalized for engaging in the same political speech.”); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 720 (2014) (attributing the religious beliefs of the shareholders of a closely held corporation to the corporate entity itself). But see Avi-Yonah, supra note 9, at 1040 (arguing that “both the majority and the dissent [of Citizens United] adopted the real entity view of the corporation”). Actually, the Court tacked back and forth between different conceptions of corporate personality.Show More By framing the corporation simply as a collection of private, rights-bearing individuals, corporate lawyers were able to argue that the rights and duties of corporations were simply the rights and duties of the natural persons who composed them, and no more.25 25.See infra Part I.Show More

This debate over whether the corporation was a state creation granted legal personhood in certain contexts for the purpose of furthering the public interest, or simply a group of private, rights-bearing individuals pursuing their own economic gain, was central to the cases involving corporate Fourteenth Amendment rights. While Morton Horwitz, Gregory Mark, and others have shown that key to the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Santa Clara was a view of the corporation as an aggregate of shareholders,26 26.Horwitz, supra note 9, at 223; Mark, supra note 9, at 1464.Show More they have not examined the equally viable, alternative vision of the corporation as a “child of the state” presented by opposing counsel and reflected in public opinion. More importantly, they have overlooked the racial analogy underlying the precedents to Santa Clara on which the doctrine of corporate constitutional personhood was built.27 27.Mark and Horwitz have explained the reliance on the aggregate theory of corporate personhood as primarily rooted in property protection. Mark, supra note 9, at 1464; Horwitz, supra note 9, at 177.Show More This Article reveals the background and reasoning behind this significant judicial reframing of corporate personhood: the aggregate theory of the corporation allowed corporate lawyers and judges to analogize shareholders to racial minorities as similarly persecuted groups targeted by discriminatory legislation.

This analogy, of course, disregarded the immense power discrepancy between corporate shareholders and persecuted racial groups. By holding that the Equal Protection Clause applied to “the despised laborer from China” as much as the “envied master of millions,”28 28.The Railroad Tax Cases, 13 F. 722, 741 (C.C.D. Cal. 1882).Show More the Ninth Circuit endorsed an interpretation of the Amendment as treating all persons alike, regardless of their social and economic power. This reasoning bolstered a “formal equality” interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, in contrast to claims that the Amendment embodied a commitment to “substantive equality” or anti-subordination—part of a trend towards limiting the Amendment’s ability to address long-standing inequalities that continues today.29 29.“Substantive equality,” or “anti-subordination,” consists not only in eliminating discrimination but also in “alter[ing] the circumstances that are identified as giving rise to equality questions in the first place.” Catharine A. MacKinnon, Substantive Equality: A Perspective, 96 Minn. L. Rev. 1, 11 (2011) [hereinafter MacKinnon, Substantive Equality]; see also Ruth Colker, Reflections on Race: The Limits of Formal Equality, 69 Ohio St. L.J. 1089, 1090 (2008) (contrasting a “formal equality” with an “anti-subordination” perspective); Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1331, 1336 (1988) (contrasting “equality as a process” with “equality as a result”). For an extensive analysis of “formal” versus “substantive” concepts of equality, see generally Catharine A. MacKinnon, Sex Equality (2007) [hereinafter MacKinnon, Sex Equality].Show More

This is not a case of manipulation by corporate lawyers of disempowered minority litigants. Chinese litigants were willing partners in the strategy to join forces with corporations to expand the Fourteenth Amendment. As this Article reveals, the economic and social connections between industrial corporate magnates and the elite Chinese mercantile and political community were long-standing. Both relied financially on the continued immigration of Chinese laborers, and both had long been represented by the same corporate lawyers. They were also both the target of discriminatory regulations that aimed to simultaneously curb corporate power and stem Chinese immigration. The Fourteenth Amendment provided a valuable tool for corporate lawyers to advocate on behalf of both sets of clients. By eliding the difference between Chinese immigrants and shareholders in these interrelated lines of cases, corporate lawyers cemented an interpretation of equal protection that culminated in the success of the twin cases of Santa Clara and Yick Wo.

For years, scholars have pondered Chief Justice Morrison Waite’s famously blithe comment at the outset of oral argument in Santa Clara that the Justices did not wish to hear argument on whether the Fourteenth Amendment applied to corporations, as they were “all of [the] opinion that it does.”30 30.Santa Clara County v. S. Pac. R.R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 (1886); see, e.g., Howard Jay Graham, The Waite Court and the Fourteenth Amendment, 17 Vand. L. Rev. 525, 530 (1964) (“Nowhere in the United States Reports are there to be found words more momentous or more baffling than these.”); Horwitz, supra note 9, at 173 (“[The decision] has always been puzzling and controversial”); Pollman, supra note 9, at 1644 n.92 (“[T]he unusual circumstances of this case have evoked skepticism and debate.”).Show More Gregory Mark has pointed out that Waite expressly avoided addressing the constitutional question and argued that his statement indicated that the Court merely intended to accept the argument that the corporate property in this case was protected as property of the shareholders.31 31.Mark, supra note 9, at 1464.Show More Elizabeth Pollman has also explained Waite’s statement as concerned with protecting the shareholders’ property interests.32 32.Pollman, supra note 9, at 1644–45.Show More Howard Graham, dismissing the claim as “dictum,” went so far as to contend that “the recording of this statement was a fluke––the Court reporter’s after-thought!”33 33.Graham, supra note 30, at 530.Show More Adam Winkler has likewise claimed that Waite never intended his quote to become part of the opinion, but that it was intentionally misrepresented in the case report by a perfidious court reporter.34 34.Winkler, supra note 8, at 153.Show More

J. Willard Hurst even posited that, given late nineteenth-century law’s general embrace of economic activity, extending the Fourteenth Amendment to corporations “provoked no significant contemporary controversy.”35 35.James Willard Hurst, The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States 1780–1970, at 68 (1970).Show More

This Article offers a novel interpretation of this puzzle. By reading Santa Clara in light of Yick Wo and the preceding line of corporate and Chinese Fourteenth Amendment cases, this Article illuminates the context of equal protection jurisprudence surrounding Waite’s enigmatic statement—specifically, the interplay between corporate personhood and race. As this Article reveals, the definition of equal protection that the Court adopted in Yick Wo had been developed in Ninth Circuit corporate and Chinese Fourteenth Amendment cases throughout the preceding decade and was central to the arguments of counsel in both Yick Wo and Santa Clara. By the time the Waite Court heard Santa Clara, the link between racial minorities and corporate shareholders had become well established in equal protection jurisprudence.36 36.Elizabeth Pollman notes the precedential effect of the Ninth Circuit’s equal protection jurisprudence but does not explore the explicit connections to race. Pollman, supra note 9, at 1644.Show More Although the Court announced its expanded interpretation of equal protection in Yick Wo rather than Santa Clara, its reasoning had long been applied equally to corporate litigants. This Article suggests that one reason why the Court declined to hear arguments on whether the Fourteenth Amendment protected corporations was because the combined precedent of Chinese and corporate cases had already established that it did.

The success of corporations at claiming constitutional rights has produced a forked legacy. Critics of Citizens United and Hobby Lobby have contended that corporate personhood has been used to trump the rights of individuals37 37.As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in Hobby Lobby, the majority prioritized religious rights of employers over the reproductive rights of female employees. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 740 (2014) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); see also Jessica L. Waters & Leandra N. Carrasco, Untangling the Reproductive Rights and Religious Liberty Knot, 26 Yale J.L. & Feminism 217 (2014).Show More and to subvert the democratic process.38 38.One outcome of Citizens United has arguably been to permit dark-money groups to sway elections. See Heather K. Gerken, The Real Problem with Citizens United: Campaign Finance, Dark Money, and Shadow Parties, 97 Marq. L. Rev. 903, 905 (2014); Danny Emmer, Shedding Light on “Dark Money”: The Heightened Risk of Foreign Influence Post-Citizens United, 20 Sw. J. Int’l L. 381, 382 (2014).Show More In contrast, supporters of the decisions have argued that corporations are collections of shareholders who do not lose their fundamental rights simply because they do business as a corporation.39 39.Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339–40 (2010); Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 706–07; see, e.g., Richard A. Epstein, The Defeat of the Contraceptive Mandate in Hobby Lobby: Right Results, Wrong Reasons, 2014 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 35, 45; Paul Horwitz, The Hobby Lobby Moment, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 154, 162–63 (2014).Show More Yet even those who oppose corporate constitutional personhood must acknowledge the discomfiting reality that corporate rights litigation has been, and continues to be, an important means of expanding rights protections for natural persons. Today, corporations play an important role in protecting civil rights in other contexts, such as by bringing claims for racial discrimination on behalf of their members under the 1866 Civil Rights Act.40 40.42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). Because corporations are typically the contracting party in these cases, not the natural persons against which the actual discrimination is directed, under common law principles of contract law the corporation is the only “person” that has standing to sue. See infra note 342.Corporate litigation has also laid the groundwork for individual claims regarding religious freedom. Hobby Lobby has been invoked by smaller corporations, nonprofits, individuals, and partnerships claiming freedom of religion rights in similar contexts. See, e.g., Brief for Petitioners at 38 n.6, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. C.R. Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (No. 16-111); Reply Brief for Petitioners in Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453 & 14-1505, at 7–8, Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. 403 (2016) (Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 & 15-191); Brief for Petitioners in Nos. 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 & 15-191, at 2, Zubik, 578 U.S. 403 (Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 & 15-191). The wealth and institutional knowledge of large corporations like Hobby Lobby and their lawyers make them ideally suited to pursue impact litigation that establishes precedent for non-corporate claims of religious freedom violations.Show More This does not mean we should rehabilitate constitutional-rights-bearing corporate persons; but we must admit that a blanket condemnation of corporate personhood ignores the important historical legacy of corporate rights litigation and the continued interconnection—even interdependency—of corporations and racial minorities.

The Article proceeds in three Parts. Part I addresses the common law vision of the corporation as both an aggregate of individuals and a “child of the state” with rights and duties different from those of natural persons and traces the continued viability of this vision throughout the period in which Santa Clara was decided. Part II concerns corporate challenges to this traditional view in Fourteenth Amendment litigation, examining the strategy of corporate lawyers’ and Ninth Circuit judges’ reliance on the aggregate theory of corporate personhood to analogize Chinese immigrants to corporate shareholders in order to support a broad reading of the Equal Protection Clause. Part III examines the background of Santa Clara and reveals how the meaning of equal protection established by the Chinese and corporate Fourteenth Amendment cases informed the Court’s ultimate rulings in Santa Clara and Yick Wo, laying the groundwork for modern equal protection doctrine today.

  1. * Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow, University of Chicago. Ph.D, University of Chicago; J.D., Harvard Law School. Many thanks to Amy Dru Stanley, Laura Weinrib, Alison LaCroix, Jonathan Levy, Ajay Mehrotra, Christopher Schmidt, Naomi Lamoreaux, Gregory Mark, Adam Winkler, Paul Kens, Nikolas Bowie, Naama Maor, Lael Weinberger, and the American Bar Foundation Doctoral Fellows Workshop (2018–2020) for their comments and insights. Thank you also to the editors of the Virginia Law Review for their deep engagement with this text, as well as their technical prowess. ↑
  2. 558 U.S. 310 (2010). ↑
  3. 573 U.S. 682 (2014). ↑
  4. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law, 2 U.S.C. § 441b (2006), that banned direct corporate spending on political campaigns. 558 U.S. at 372. Citizens United was part of a long line of cases in which the Court had recognized the First Amendment rights of corporations, including: NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 459 (1958) (freedom of association); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 428–29 (1963) (freedom of expression and association); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 264 (1964) (freedom of speech and the press); and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 784 (1978) (campaign expenditures as political speech). Hobby Lobby concluded that corporations were “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb–1, and held that Health and Human Services regulations requiring employers to provide insurance that covered contraceptives unconstitutionally burdened closely held corporations’ exercise of religion. 573 U.S. at 736. ↑
  5. See Move to Amend, https://www.movetoamend.org/ [https://perma.cc/RH9L-2FZT] (last visited Aug. 19, 2020); United for the People, http://united4thepeople.org/ [https://perma.cc/XS9X-LZNR] (last visited Aug. 19, 2020). ↑
  6. United for the People, supra note 4; Move to Amend, supra note 4. See Joanna M. Meyer, The Real Error in Citizens United, 69 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 2171, 2198 (2012). ↑
  7. H.R.J. Res. 48, 116th Cong. (2019) (proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only). Other bills introduced in both the House and the Senate have targeted specific constitutional rights, such as one “waiving the application of the first article of amendment to the political speech of corporations.” H.R.J. Res. 39, 116th Cong. (2019). See United for the People, http://united4thepeople.org/amendments/ (last visited Oct. 31, 2021) [https://perma.cc/QGU7-883U], for an up-to-date list of proposed amendments relating to corporate constitutional rights. ↑
  8.  See Move to Amend, https://move-to-amend.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage [https://perma.cc/8JVP-CYAD] (last visited Dec. 28, 2021). ↑
  9. For early cases debating the constitutional rights of corporations, see Bank of United States v. Deveaux, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 61, 63–64 (1809); Hope Insurance Co. of Providence v. Boardman, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 57, 58 (1809); Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 43, 46–47 (1815); Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 518, 556 (1819); Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Peters) 420, 421 (1837); and Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston Railroad Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. (2 Howard) 497, 499 (1844). See also Adam Winkler, We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights, at xxi (2018) (describing how the country’s most powerful corporations have persistently tried to use the Constitution to evade unwanted government regulations); Margaret M. Blair & Elizabeth Pollman, The Derivative Nature of Corporate Constitutional Rights, 56 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1673, 1680 (2015) (explaining how the Supreme Court was tasked with determining the applicability of constitutional provisions to corporations in an 1809 case involving the first Bank of the United States). ↑
  10.  Legal historians of corporate personhood have discussed corporate Fourteenth Amendment cases in some detail but have neglected the role that race played in the development of these cases. For representative writings on corporate personhood and constitutional rights, see Morton J. Horwitz, Santa Clara Revisited: The Development of Corporate Theory, 88 W. Va. L. Rev. 173, 174 (1985); Blair & Pollman, supra note 8, at 1677; Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, Citizens United and the Corporate Form, 2010 Wis. L. Rev. 999, 1033–34; Gregory A. Mark, The Personification of the Business Corporation in American Law, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1441, 1443 (1987); Herbert Hovenkamp, The Classical Corporation in American Legal Thought, 76 Geo. L.J. 1593, 1640–41 (1988); David K. Millon, Theories of the Corporation, 1990 Duke L.J. 201, 205–07; Elizabeth Pollman, Reconceiving Corporate Personhood, 2011 Utah L. Rev. 1629, 1630; Margaret M. Blair, Corporate Personhood and the Corporate Persona, 2013 U. Ill. L. Rev. 785, 796–97; Kent Greenfield, In Defense of Corporate Persons, 30 Const. Comment. 309, 310–12 (2015); Tamara R. Piety, Why Personhood Matters, 30 Const. Comment. 361, 362–63 (2015); Turkuler Isiksel, Corporations as Rights-Bearers, J. Pol. (forthcoming) (manuscript at 1–2) (on file with the author). ↑
  11. At the time, the Circuit Court for the District of California, where the cases discussed in this Article arose, was located in the federal circuit encompassing California and Oregon. This court exercised both original and appellate jurisdiction and was staffed by one Supreme Court Justice (Stephen Field), one circuit court judge (Lorenzo Sawyer), and one district court judge (Ogden Hoffman), any two of which could hear a case. Christian G. Fritz, Federal Justice in California: The Court of Ogden Hoffman, 1851–1891, at 29–30 (1991). To avoid confusion, this Article follows contemporary scholarship that refers to these cases as occurring in the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 29; Howard J. Graham, Everyman’s Constitution: Historical Essays on the Fourteenth Amendment, the “Conspiracy Theory,” and American Constitutionalism 573 (1968); Winkler, supra note 8, at 153–54. However, this should not be confused with the modern-day U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was not created until the federal appellate system was redesigned in 1891. Joshua Glick, On the Road: The Supreme Court and the History of Circuit Riding, 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1753, 1826 (2003). ↑
  12. A growing area of scholarship explores the connections between corporations and race. See, e.g., Cheryl L. Wade, Attempting to Discuss Race in Business and Corporate Law Courses and Seminars, 77 St. John’s L. Rev. 901 (2003); Alfred Dennis Mathewson, Race in Ordinary Course: Utilizing the Racial Background in Antitrust and Corporate Law Courses, 23 St. John’s J. Legal Comment. 667, 685 (2008); Cheryl L. Wade, Introduction to Symposium on People of Color, Women, and the Public Corporation: The Sophistication of Discrimination, 79 St. John’s L. Rev. 887, 890 (2005); Thomas W. Joo, Corporate Hierarchy and Racial Justice, 79 St. John’s L. Rev. 955 (2005); Thomas W. Joo, Race, Corporate Law, and Shareholder Value, 54 J. Legal Ed. 351 (2004); Juliet E.K. Walker, White Corporate America: The New Arbiter of Race? in Constructing Corporate America: History, Politics, Culture, 246, 253, 260 (Kenneth Lipartito & David B. Sicilia eds., 2007). ↑
  13. 118 U.S. 394 (1886). ↑
  14. See Horwitz, supra note 9, at 173; Blair & Pollman, supra note 8, at 1694–95; Avi-Yonah, supra note 9, at 1033–34. ↑
  15. 118 U.S. 356 (1886). ↑
  16.  See 2 Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties 482, 1055 (Kara E. Stooksbury, John M. Scheb, II & Otis H Stephens, Jr. eds., rev. and expanded ed. 2017); Peter Irons, Jim Crow’s Children: The Broken Promise of the Brown Decision 53 (2004); see also infra notes 327–35 (noting early civil rights cases citing Yick Wo). ↑
  17. Scholars have studied the connection between Fourteenth Amendment claims of Chinese immigrants and the Supreme Court’s desire to protect economic rights. See Thomas Wuil Joo, New “Conspiracy Theory” of the Fourteenth Amendment: Nineteenth Century Chinese Civil Rights Cases and the Development of Substantive Due Process Jurisprudence, 29 U.S.F. L. Rev. 353, 354–55 (1995); Thomas W. Joo, Yick Wo Re-Revisited: Nonblack Nonwhites and Fourteenth Amendment History, 2008 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1427, 1428; Charles McClain, Jr., In Search of Equality: The Chinese Struggle Against Discrimination in Nineteenth-Century America 83 (1994); Graham, supra note 10, at 15; Daniel W. Levy, Classical Lawyers and the Southern Pacific Railroad, 9 W. Legal Hist. 177, 211, 216 (1996); Paul Kens, Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age 209 (1997); Winkler, supra note 8, at 153. However, no prior scholarship has specifically examined the intersection of Fourteenth Amendment claims by corporations and by Chinese immigrants. ↑
  18. See In re Ah Fong, 1 F. Cas. 213, 213 (C.C.D. Cal. 1874) (No. 102); Ho Ah Kow v. Nunan, 12 F. Cas. 252, 252 (C.C.D. Cal. 1879) (No. 6,546); In re Ah Chong, 2 F. 733, 737 (C.C.D. Cal. 1880); In re Tiburcio Parrott, 1 F. 481, 482 (C.C.D. Cal. 1880); The Railroad Tax Cases, 13 F. 722, 727 (C.C.D. Cal. 1882); In re Quong Woo, 13 F. 229, 233 (C.C.D. Cal. 1882); County of Santa Clara v. S. Pac. R.R. Co., 18 F. 385, 386, 397 (C.C.D. Cal. 1883), aff’d, 118 U.S. 394 (1886); In re Yick Wo, 9 P. 139, 139 (Cal. 1885), rev’d sub nom. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); In re Wo Lee, 26 F. 471, 475 (C.C.D. Cal. 1886). ↑
  19. Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 80–81 (1873). ↑
  20. The social and political connections of Chinese “coolies” with railroad and mining corporations in the context of Greater Reconstruction debates over the meaning of “free labor” and “equality” are explored in Evelyn Atkinson, Slaves, Coolies, and Shareholders: Corporations Claim the Fourteenth Amendment, 10 J. Civ. War Era 54 (2020). ↑
  21. See John Dewey, The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality, 35 Yale L.J. 655, 656 (1926); 3 The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland 307 (H. A. L. Fisher ed., 1911). ↑
  22. See discussion infra Part I. ↑
  23. William Novak discusses the extensive power of state legislatures to regulate in the “public interest” in William J. Novak, The People’s Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America 19–20 (1996). ↑
  24. This has been called the “natural” or “real entity” theory of the corporation, that corporations are naturally emerging market entities controlled by their managers. See Avi-Yonah, supra note 9, at 1000–01; Blair, supra note 9, at 805; Pollman, supra note 9, at 1642; Arthur W. Machen, Jr., Corporate Personality, 24 Harv. L. Rev 253, 262 (1911). ↑
  25. This is called the “aggregate” or “associational” theory. See Horwitz, supra note 9, at 182; Mark, supra note 9, at 1462; Hovenkamp, supra note 9, at 1597–98; Pollman, supra note 9, at 1662. Morton Horwitz argues that the aggregate theory was short-lived because of the increasing separation of management and control and that the “entity” theory replaced the aggregate theory in the early twentieth century. Horwitz, supra note 9, at 182. However, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and other recent cases have invoked an aggregate view of the corporation to justify extending freedom of speech and religion to corporations. See Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 356 (2010) (“Yet certain disfavored associations of citizens—those that have taken on the corporate form—are penalized for engaging in the same political speech.”); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 720 (2014) (attributing the religious beliefs of the shareholders of a closely held corporation to the corporate entity itself). But see Avi-Yonah, supra note 9, at 1040 (arguing that “both the majority and the dissent [of Citizens United] adopted the real entity view of the corporation”). Actually, the Court tacked back and forth between different conceptions of corporate personality. ↑
  26. See infra Part I. ↑
  27. Horwitz, supra note 9, at 223; Mark, supra note 9, at 1464. ↑
  28. Mark and Horwitz have explained the reliance on the aggregate theory of corporate personhood as primarily rooted in property protection. Mark, supra note 9, at 1464; Horwitz, supra note 9, at 177. ↑
  29. The Railroad Tax Cases, 13 F. 722, 741 (C.C.D. Cal. 1882). ↑
  30.  “Substantive equality,” or “anti-subordination,” consists not only in eliminating discrimination but also in “alter[ing] the circumstances that are identified as giving rise to equality questions in the first place.” Catharine A. MacKinnon, Substantive Equality: A Perspective, 96 Minn. L. Rev. 1, 11 (2011) [hereinafter MacKinnon, Substantive Equality]; see also Ruth Colker, Reflections on Race: The Limits of Formal Equality, 69 Ohio St. L.J. 1089, 1090 (2008) (contrasting a “formal equality” with an “anti-subordination” perspective); Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1331, 1336 (1988) (contrasting “equality as a process” with “equality as a result”). For an extensive analysis of “formal” versus “substantive” concepts of equality, see generally Catharine A. MacKinnon, Sex Equality (2007) [hereinafter MacKinnon, Sex Equality]. ↑
  31. Santa Clara County v. S. Pac. R.R. Co., 118 U.S. 394, 396 (1886); see, e.g., Howard Jay Graham, The Waite Court and the Fourteenth Amendment, 17 Vand. L. Rev. 525, 530 (1964) (“Nowhere in the United States Reports are there to be found words more momentous or more baffling than these.”); Horwitz, supra note 9, at 173 (“[The decision] has always been puzzling and controversial”); Pollman, supra note 9, at 1644 n.92 (“[T]he unusual circumstances of this case have evoked skepticism and debate.”). ↑
  32. Mark, supra note 9, at 1464. ↑
  33. Pollman, supra note 9, at 1644–45. ↑
  34. Graham, supra note 30, at 530. ↑
  35. Winkler, supra note 8, at 153. ↑
  36. James Willard Hurst, The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States 1780–1970, at 68 (1970). ↑
  37. Elizabeth Pollman notes the precedential effect of the Ninth Circuit’s equal protection jurisprudence but does not explore the explicit connections to race. Pollman, supra note 9, at 1644. ↑
  38. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in Hobby Lobby, the majority prioritized religious rights of employers over the reproductive rights of female employees. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 740 (2014) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); see also Jessica L. Waters & Leandra N. Carrasco, Untangling the Reproductive Rights and Religious Liberty Knot, 26 Yale J.L. & Feminism 217 (2014). ↑
  39. One outcome of Citizens United has arguably been to permit dark-money groups to sway elections. See Heather K. Gerken, The Real Problem with Citizens United: Campaign Finance, Dark Money, and Shadow Parties, 97 Marq. L. Rev. 903, 905 (2014); Danny Emmer, Shedding Light on “Dark Money”: The Heightened Risk of Foreign Influence Post-Citizens United, 20 Sw. J. Int’l L. 381, 382 (2014). ↑
  40. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339–40 (2010); Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 706–07; see, e.g., Richard A. Epstein, The Defeat of the Contraceptive Mandate in Hobby Lobby: Right Results, Wrong Reasons, 2014 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 35, 45; Paul Horwitz, The Hobby Lobby Moment, 128 Harv. L. Rev. 154, 162–63 (2014). ↑

  41. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). Because corporations are typically the contracting party in these cases, not the natural persons against which the actual discrimination is directed, under common law principles of contract law the corporation is the only “person” that has standing to sue. See infra note 342.

    Corporate litigation has also laid the groundwork for individual claims regarding religious freedom. Hobby Lobby has been invoked by smaller corporations, nonprofits, individuals, and partnerships claiming freedom of religion rights in similar contexts. See, e.g., Brief for Petitioners at 38 n.6, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. C.R. Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (No. 16-111); Reply Brief for Petitioners in Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453 & 14-1505, at 7–8, Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. 403 (2016) (Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 & 15-191); Brief for Petitioners in Nos. 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 & 15-191, at 2, Zubik, 578 U.S. 403 (Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 & 15-191). The wealth and institutional knowledge of large corporations like Hobby Lobby and their lawyers make them ideally suited to pursue impact litigation that establishes precedent for non-corporate claims of religious freedom violations. ↑

The Original Meaning of “Due Process of Law” in the Fifth Amendment

The modern understanding of the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause is dramatically different from the original meaning of the constitutional text. The Supreme Court has embraced both substantive due process—a jurisprudence of unenumerated rights—and procedural due process—a grab bag of doctrines that touch upon almost every aspect of administrative and judicial procedures. We demonstrate that the original meaning of the Clause is much narrower. In 1791, “due process of law” had a narrow and technical meaning: the original sense of the word “process” was close to the modern sense that the word has when used in the phrase “service of process,” and it did not extend to all legal procedures, much less to all laws that impact liberty or privacy. In the late eighteenth century, “due process of law” was distinguished from two other important phrases. The phrase “due course of law” referred broadly to all aspects of a legal proceeding, including trials, appeals, and other matters. The phrase “law of the land” extended to all of what we would now call the positive law of a particular state or nation. Once these three ideas are properly distinguished and the relevant history is examined, the evidence for the narrow understanding (what we call the “Process Theory”) is overwhelming. As a consequence, almost all modern Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause cases are either wrongly decided or wrongly reasoned from an originalist perspective.

Introduction

There are two Due Process of Law Clauses in the United States Constitution. The first is found in the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.1 1.U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added).Show More

The second Due Process of Law Clause is found in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.2 2.Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (“[D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”).Show More

The conventional wisdom is that the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal (national) government; the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the states.

This Article is about the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause; our findings may be relevant to the meaning of the very similar language of the Fourteenth Amendment, but they may not—the meaning of “due process of law” might have changed between 1791 and 1868.

The original meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause is surprising. The contemporary understanding of the phrase is ambiguous and contested, encompassing two distinct but related theories of its meaning. The first of these theories, the “Fair Procedures Theory,” is that “due process of law” means legal procedures that are fair (procedurally just). The fairness view is reflected in International Shoe Co. v. Washington’s idea of “fair play and substantial justice” and many other cases.3 3.By “contemporary positive law,” we mean the law that was in effect at the time the alleged rights violation occurred.Show More

The second account of the Due Process of Law Clause, the “Legal Procedures Theory,” holds that the phrase means procedures that are required and/or permitted by positive law. This second theory comes in two variants. The first variant requires that the procedures comply with contemporary positive law4 4.Justice Black articulated this view in his dissenting opinion in International Shoe,326 U.S. at 324–25 (Black, J., dissenting), and his concurrence in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 62 (1967) (Black, J., concurring) (“The phrase ‘due process of law’ has through the years evolved as the successor in purpose and meaning to the words ‘law of the land’ in Magna Charta which more plainly intended to call for a trial according to the existing law of the land in effect at the time an alleged offense had been committed.”).Show More—this variant is associated with Justice Hugo Black.5 5.Justice Scalia’s articulation of his view is not stated clearly and with precision. See Burnham v. Superior Ct., 495 U.S. 604, 610–11 (1990) (identifying 1868 as the crucial date for the meaning of the Due Process of Law Clause).Show More The second variant requires that the procedures comply with the positive law at the time the Fifth Amendment was framed and ratified, roughly 1791—this version of the Legal Procedures Theory is associated with Justice Antonin Scalia.6 6.Process, OED Online, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/151794 [https://perma.cc/MY5V​-Z5BL] (last visited Oct. 7, 2021).Show More None of these views are correct from an originalist perspective.

Instead, the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause is captured by a third theory, which we call the “Process Theory.” The phrase “due process of law” had a very precise and restricted meaning: the Clause is limited to legally required “process” in what is today a narrow and technical sense of that word.

The key to understanding the Process Theory is the word “process.” That word is ambiguous. One sense of the word “process” today is very abstract and general. In this sense, the word “process” can refer to a variety of phenomena, including chemical processes, mechanical processes, and legal procedures of any kind. This is the sense specified by the Oxford English Dictionary (“OED”) as the eighth (and most common) definition of the noun form of the word “process”:

A continuous and regular action or succession of actions occurring or performed in a definite manner, and having a particular result or outcome; a sustained operation or series of operations.7 7.Id.Show More

But the word “process” has today and had in 1791 a very specific and precise meaning. We can begin to get at that meaning of process via the “b” variant of the fifth definition in the OED:

The formal commencement of any legal action; the mandate, summons, or writ by which a person or thing is brought into court for litigation.8 8.3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *279 (footnote omitted).Show More

Of course, this narrow meaning is familiar to all American lawyers: this is the sense of the word “process” as it is used in the phrase “service of process.” Process is a formal document that provides a person notice of legal obligation, such as the obligation of a defendant in a civil action to appear at trial (at the risk of default for nonappearance). Process can also grant authority, such as the authority to arrest an individual or to seize their home.

The Process Theory of the meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause maintains that the Clause requires that deprivations of life, liberty, or property must be preceded by process of law in this narrow and technical legal sense. In other words, a criminal defendant may not be deprived of life or liberty without first either personal service of process or some legally valid alternative such as service by publication in a narrow category of cases. Similarly, civil defendants may not be subject to a damage award or judgment depriving them of property without legally valid process. In this sense, the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause ensures notice and jurisdiction.

There are other implications of the Clause as well. “Due process of law” encompasses “original process,” the service of process that is required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but it also includes mesne and final process. Here is Blackstone’s summary:

The next step for carrying on the suit, after suing out the original, is called the process; being the means of compelling the defendant to appear in court. This is sometimes called original process, being founded upon the original writ; and also to distinguish it from mesne or intermediate process, which issues, pending the suit, upon some collateral interlocutory matter; as to summon juries, witnesses, and the like. Mesne process is also sometimes put in contradistinction to final process, or process of execution; and then it signifies all such process as intervenes between the beginning and end of a suit.9 9.U.S. Const. amend. IX.Show More

The core idea of the Process Theory is that “due process of law” means legal process in the technical sense that is approximated by Blackstone’s discussion—i.e., formal documents, generally issuing from a court, that impose legal obligations or rights. Absent such process, the Clause prohibits any deprivation of certain essential rights (life, liberty, or property) by a government actor. Put another way, the Due Process of Law Clause requires that the executive secure the judiciary’s approval before depriving an individual of their rights. The Clause therefore prohibits arbitrary deprivations and furthers separation of powers principles. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process of Law Clause does not extend to all legal procedures; for example, it does not include trial by jury, pleadings, summary judgment, discovery, and many other legal procedures that are not “process.” Nor does the Clause require that procedures be fair.

We do not mean to say that the constitutional doctrines presently derived from the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause are necessarily unsupported by the constitutional text. From an originalist perspective, there may be other constitutional provisions that are relevant. For example, even if the Clause does not specify the timing or form of hearings that must be provided by the federal government, the Sixth and Seventh Amendments guarantee a right to a jury trial. The Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause would not support unenumerated rights under the rubric of “substantive due process,” but the Ninth Amendment provides that the “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,”10 10.Randy E. Barnett, The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says, 85 Tex. L. Rev 1, 80 (2006).Show More and originalist scholars have argued that this provision does protect unenumerated rights against the federal government.11 11.59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1856).Show More None of these protections, however, are located in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process of Law Clause.

In sum, starting with Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.12 12.326 U.S. 310 (1945).Show More and proceeding through contemporary Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause doctrine, including International Shoe,13 13.424 U.S. 319 (1976).Show More Mathews v. Eldridge,14 14.See infra Part IV.Show More and dozens of other cases, the whole corpus of due process of law doctrine is inconsistent with the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause. In other words, the living constitutionalist construction of the Due Process of Law Clause is inconsistent with its original meaning. So, too, are some of the most important originalist interpretations, which extend the meaning of “process” to all legal procedures.

This suggests that “due process of law” has undergone linguistic drift—its meaning has changed since the First Congress proposed it for ratification. This Article does not tell the story of how the meaning changed; instead, we are focused on the meaning as it existed in 1791, when the language of the Due Process of Law Clause was ratified. We do have important things to say about developments in the nineteenth century,15 15.326 U.S. at 316.Show More but we will not purport to settle questions about the meaning of “due process of law” in the Fourteenth Amendment. And we do not offer an account of the emergence of the conflation of “due process” with “fair process” or the development of the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence.

We are mindful that the Process Theory has normatively significant implications for Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause doctrine. Recall that the Process Theory is limited to the Fifth Amendment and hence that its implications only extend to actions by the federal government. Examples of Fourteenth Amendment doctrines that are conventionally understood to extend to the national government include:

  • The minimum contacts approach to personal jurisdiction articulated in International Shoe.16 16.424 U.S. at 334–35.Show More
  • Procedural due process doctrines that regulate the form and timing of hearings and trials, including the balancing approach of Mathews v. Eldridge.17 17.381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).Show More
  • Substantive due process rights, including the right to privacy articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut18 18.410 U.S. 113, 152–53 (1973).Show More and extended in Roe v. Wade19 19.See infra text accompanying note 23.Show More to the right to choice with respect to abortion.

Because our analysis is limited to federal action, it has no direct implications for any of these decisions as they apply to state governments.

From an originalist perspective, the meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause does not depend on a normative assessment of the consequences that would flow from its original public meaning. For originalists, the role of normative assessment occurs at a more general level of analysis. Thus, originalists argue that constitutional actors should be bound by the original public meaning of all the Constitution’s provisions; originalists reject the idea that judges can amend the Constitution when they believe that good consequences would result. This idea is expressed in the Constraint Principle, which is stated below.20 20.See infra Section V.C.Show More

We recognize that living constitutionalists reject the Constraint Principle and therefore believe that the Supreme Court ought to have the power to adopt amending constructions of the Constitution in order to achieve good outcomes. That belief is not limited to the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause; it extends in principle to every constitutional provision. Nonetheless, at least some living constitutionalists may believe that the original public meaning of the constitutional text is relevant to constitutional interpretation and construction—an idea we discuss below.footnote_id_22_21

Here is the roadmap. Part I situates our project in the context of originalist constitutional theory. Part II explicates three fundamental phrases: “due process of law,” “due course of law,” and the “law of the land.” Part III provides the first half of our case for the Process Theory via an examination of the meaning of “due process of law” before the framing and ratification of the Fifth Amendment. The second half of that case is provided in Part IV, which surveys developments during and after the ratification of the Fifth Amendment. Part V addresses unanswered questions and implications of our findings. We conclude with a summary and some speculations about the consequences that might follow if judges were to pay serious attention to the original meaning of the Fifth Amendment Due Process of Law Clause.

  1. U.S. Const. amend. V (emphasis added). ↑
  2. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). ↑
  3. Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (“[D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”). ↑
  4. By “contemporary positive law,” we mean the law that was in effect at the time the alleged rights violation occurred. ↑
  5. Justice Black articulated this view in his dissenting opinion in International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 324–25 (Black, J., dissenting), and his concurrence in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 62 (1967) (Black, J., concurring) (“The phrase ‘due process of law’ has through the years evolved as the successor in purpose and meaning to the words ‘law of the land’ in Magna Charta which more plainly intended to call for a trial according to the existing law of the land in effect at the time an alleged offense had been committed.”). ↑
  6. Justice Scalia’s articulation of his view is not stated clearly and with precision. See Burnham v. Superior Ct., 495 U.S. 604, 610–11 (1990) (identifying 1868 as the crucial date for the meaning of the Due Process of Law Clause). ↑
  7. Process, OED Online, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/151794 [https://perma.cc/MY5V​-Z5BL] (last visited Oct. 7, 2021). ↑
  8. Id. ↑
  9. 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *279 (footnote omitted). ↑
  10. U.S. Const. amend. IX. ↑
  11. Randy E. Barnett, The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says, 85 Tex. L. Rev 1, 80 (2006). ↑
  12. 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1856). ↑
  13. 326 U.S. 310 (1945). ↑
  14. 424 U.S. 319 (1976). ↑
  15. See infra Part IV. ↑
  16. 326 U.S. at 316. ↑
  17. 424 U.S. at 334–35. ↑
  18. 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). ↑
  19. 410 U.S. 113, 152–53 (1973). ↑
  20. See infra text accompanying note 23. ↑

  21. See infra Section V.C. ↑

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.