The Progenitor

The U.S. Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad ( 118 U.S. 394; 6 S. Ct. 1132; 30 L. Ed. 118) is often regarded as the first major step in the establishment of corporations as possessing constitutional rights traditionally afforded to people.

The court opinion itself is a rather dry one, and seemingly innocuous. It begins with an explanation of the process of empowering, through federal and state legislation, of certain railroad companies for the purposes of creating a transcontinental railroad system during the mid nineteenth century. It then goes into detail regarding the issue at hand for the court, that of tax assessments on property owned by the railroad companies by individual counties. The court eventually ruled for the railroad company on the grounds that certain property had been inappropriately accessed for tax purposes.

Nowhere in the official court opinion was it opined by the justices that corporations enjoyed constitutional protections through the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. So why is such a seemingly mundane court case so noteworthy? The reason it is known today is because the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, mentioned the following remark in the head note to the case:

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1050369429283

Thus, despite the fact that the official court opinion made no decision on the issue (in effect, they punted and decided the case on other grounds), future Supreme Court decisions would use this head note in their rationales. Per the Law.com article cited earlier:

“Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 (1898), and Northwestern Nat. Life v. Riggs, 203 U.S. 243 (1906) -- holding that corporations are "persons." Santa Clara has had a long life. In Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), the Court held that corporations are protected by the First Amendment. Citing Santa Clara, the majority opinion said, "It has been settled for almost a century that corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Perhaps it would have occurred eventually regardless of Davis’s addition. However, as it stands, the unofficial precedent of 14th amendment protections for corporations was effectively created through the pen of one man

Brief Introduction to Corporate Personhood

Under our Constitution, individual persons are granted various rights and protections which we are quite familiar with: rights to free speech, assembly, association, religion, protection from self-incrimination, and many more. We are protected from the federal government directly through the Bill of Rights Amendments and case law interpretations, and we are protected from potential egregious state government action through the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

However, what about a business, such as Microsoft? Under the law, it is afforded many protections that are normally given to flesh and blood, living and breathing human beings, a concept known as "Corporate Personhood". In terms of commercial business it only makes sense that a corporation should have the right to own property and to enter into contracts; it would be quite difficult to picture the operation of a corporation which did not possess such rights. But what about other rights, such as the right to free speech? Should a corporation be allowed to say anything it likes (assuming of course it doesn't incite violence or otherwise fall under the restrictions to free speech that everyone must observe)? Should a corporation be restricted when engaging in the political process or should it possess all of the rights that individuals possess?

The following weeks will see further examination of the issue of corporate personhood, including the history of how it developed as well as current events, including a case before the Supreme Court this year which may have important ramifications on a corporation's restrictions on campaign financing. Those interested in reading about a more in depth study of the issue may wish to read the Wikipedia entry, though always remember the caveat about Wikipedia articles: though they are often self-regulated by the online community with a general aim for neutrality, anyone may edit an article and say whatever they wish, so always approach the subject material with a degree of suspicion as to its authenticity.