Key Takeaways
- Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) established that the Fourteenth Amendment did not guarantee women the right to practice law, reinforcing state authority over professional licensing and reflecting the gender norms of the era.
- The Supreme Court’s ruling, especially the concurring opinions, openly articulated gender biases, which significantly impacted the progression of women’s rights in the legal profession.
- While the decision was a setback, it became a catalyst for future advocacy and legal change, paving the way for later rulings that advanced gender equality under the law.
Introduction
Bradwell v. Illinois stands as a landmark United States Supreme Court case that addressed the intersection of gender, professional licensing, and constitutional rights. Decided in 1873, this case arose when Myra Bradwell, a pioneering legal reformer and editor, was denied admission to the Illinois bar solely because she was a woman. Bradwell’s challenge, based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, was ultimately rejected by the Court. The decision not only reflected the prevailing societal norms of the 19th century but also set the stage for future legal battles for gender equality. This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the case, its context, the Court’s reasoning, its historical impact, and its enduring significance in American legal history.
Background of Bradwell v. Illinois
Myra Bradwell: Trailblazer and Reform Advocate
Myra Bradwell was a formidable figure in 19th-century America. Born in 1831, she became a prominent legal reform activist and the founder and editor of the influential Chicago Legal News. Bradwell was deeply committed to advancing women’s rights, particularly in the legal profession, at a time when women were systematically excluded from most professional fields. Her application to the Illinois bar in 1869 was groundbreaking, as very few women in the United States had ever attempted to enter the legal profession.
The Denial of Bradwell’s Application
Bradwell’s application to practice law was denied by the Illinois Supreme Court. The court’s rationale was explicit: Bradwell’s gender made her ineligible. The court stated that “God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action,” reflecting the deeply entrenched gender roles of the period. Undeterred, Bradwell appealed the decision, arguing that the denial violated her rights under the newly ratified Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause
The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, was intended to secure equal rights for all citizens, particularly in the wake of the Civil War. Bradwell’s legal argument centered on the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Bradwell contended that the right to practice law was one of these fundamental privileges.
The Supreme Court Proceedings
The Arguments Before the Court
Bradwell’s case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1872. Her legal team argued that the denial of her application was a violation of her constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen. The State of Illinois countered that regulation of the legal profession was a matter for the states, not the federal government, and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not guarantee the right to practice a profession.
The Decision: Upholding Gender Exclusion
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling. Justice Samuel Freeman Miller delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Clifford, Davis, Strong, and Hunt. The majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend to the right to practice a profession, and that states retained the authority to regulate professional licensing as they saw fit.
The full text of the decision is available at Oyez and Justia.
Justice Miller’s Majority Opinion
Justice Miller’s opinion emphasized the limited scope of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. He wrote:
“The right to admit attorneys to practice in the courts of a State is not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Thus, the Court found that the Constitution did not require Illinois to admit women to the bar, and that such decisions were within the purview of state governments.
Concurring and Dissenting Opinions
Justice Bradley, joined by Justices Swayne and Field, wrote a concurring opinion that went further, explicitly endorsing the exclusion of women from the legal profession. Bradley’s opinion reflected the gender biases of the era:
“The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.”
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase dissented, although his dissent was not accompanied by a written opinion.
The opinions are further discussed in the Federal Judicial Center’s history spotlight.
The Social and Legal Context
Gender Roles and Professional Exclusion
The decision in Bradwell v. Illinois must be understood within the broader context of 19th-century American society. Women were largely excluded from professional life, and the legal system reflected and reinforced these norms. The Court’s ruling was consistent with prevailing attitudes that women were unsuited for many professions, particularly law.
The Impact on Women’s Rights
The Bradwell decision was a significant setback for advocates of women’s rights. It reinforced the notion that states could lawfully exclude women from the legal profession and, by extension, from other professions as well. However, the case also galvanized the women’s rights movement, drawing attention to the legal barriers women faced and inspiring further advocacy.
For more on the historical context, see the Illinois Courts’ historical overview.
Aftermath and Legacy
Myra Bradwell’s Continued Advocacy
Despite her defeat at the Supreme Court, Myra Bradwell remained a tireless advocate for legal reform and women’s rights. She continued to publish the Chicago Legal News, using it as a platform to advance her cause. Bradwell’s perseverance and leadership inspired other women to pursue legal careers and challenge discriminatory laws.
Illinois Supreme Court’s Reversal
In 1890, the Illinois Supreme Court granted Bradwell a license to practice law, issuing it nunc pro tunc (“now for then”) to retroactively recognize her right to practice from the date of her original application. This belated recognition was a symbolic victory, acknowledging the injustice of the earlier decision and Bradwell’s rightful place in the legal profession.
This development is highlighted by the Federal Judicial Center.
Influence on Future Legal Developments
Although Bradwell v. Illinois upheld gender discrimination, it became a touchstone for later legal challenges and reforms. The decision was frequently cited in debates over women’s rights and the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. Over time, the legal landscape shifted, and the principles underlying Bradwell were rejected by subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
Overruling Bradwell: The Path to Gender Equality
Reed v. Reed and the Equal Protection Clause
The most significant legal reversal of Bradwell’s principles came in Reed v. Reed (1971). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that gender discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s unanimous decision in Reed marked a turning point, establishing that laws classifying people based on gender were subject to constitutional scrutiny.
For the full opinion, see Reed v. Reed on Oyez.
The Evolution of Gender Discrimination Law
Following Reed, the Supreme Court continued to expand protections against gender discrimination. Cases such as Frontiero v. Richardson (1973) and United States v. Virginia (1996) further entrenched the principle that gender-based classifications are presumptively unconstitutional. These decisions built on the foundation laid by earlier advocates like Myra Bradwell, even as they repudiated the reasoning of Bradwell v. Illinois.
For a discussion of the legal evolution, see the Cato at Liberty Blog.
Modern Perspectives on Bradwell v. Illinois
Today, Bradwell v. Illinois is widely regarded as a cautionary example of how legal doctrines can perpetuate social injustice. The case is studied in law schools as a pivotal moment in the history of women’s rights and as a reminder of the importance of constitutional protections against discrimination.
For further reading, see Cornell Law School’s gender justice resource.
Continuing Significance
A Reference Point in Gender Justice
Bradwell v. Illinois remains a reference point in discussions about gender justice and the legal profession. The case is frequently cited in legal scholarship, judicial opinions, and advocacy materials. It serves as a reminder of the progress made over the past century and the ongoing challenges in achieving full gender equality.
Lessons for the Legal Profession
The story of Myra Bradwell and her struggle for admission to the bar has inspired generations of lawyers and activists. Her case underscores the importance of vigilance in protecting civil rights and the need for continued advocacy to ensure equal access to the professions.
The Role of State and Federal Law
Bradwell v. Illinois also highlights the complex relationship between state and federal authority in regulating professions. While the Supreme Court ultimately recognized federal limits on state power in later cases, the Bradwell decision stands as a historical example of deference to state authority, even at the expense of individual rights.
Conclusion
Bradwell v. Illinois is a landmark case that encapsulates the challenges and setbacks faced by women seeking equality in the legal profession. The Supreme Court’s decision, rooted in the gender biases of its time, denied Myra Bradwell the right to practice law and reinforced state authority over professional licensing. However, Bradwell’s perseverance and the subsequent evolution of constitutional law transformed her defeat into a catalyst for change. The case’s legacy endures as a testament to the ongoing struggle for gender equality and the critical role of the courts in shaping social justice.
For comprehensive legal research and insights into landmark cases like Bradwell v. Illinois, visit Counsel Stack.
Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Bradwell v. Illinois and related legal developments. It is not legal advice and does not address all nuances or jurisdictional variations. For specific legal questions, consult a qualified attorney or legal research service.
