“[A] State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands
even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished;
and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing,
for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.”
Last paragraph in John Stuart Mill’s essay, On Liberty.

Here are cases discussing the right to work.

    A. Supreme Court:

Butchers’ Union Slaughterhouse Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing Co., 111 U.S. 746, 756-57 (1884):

“As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ – that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement – ‘that all men are endowed’ – not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.’ – that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime – ‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these’ – not grant them, but secure them – ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that ‘the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.’ Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.”

Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 121 (1889):
 
“It is undoubtedly the right of every citizen of the United States to follow any lawful calling, business, or profession he may choose, subject only to such restrictions as are imposed upon all persons of like age, sex and condition.”

Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589-90 (1897):

“The ‘liberty’ mentioned in that amendment means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.
    
“It was said by Mr. Justice Bradley, in Butchers’ Union Slaughterhouse Co. v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing Co., 111 U.S. 746 , at page 762, 4 Sup. Ct. 657, in the course of his concurring opinion in that case, that ‘the right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.’ Again, on page 764, 111 U. S., and on page 658, 4 Sup. Ct., the learned justice said: ‘I hold that the liberty of pursuit-the right to follow any of the ordinary callings of life-is one of the privileges of a citizen of the United States.’ And again, on page 765, 111 U. S., and on page 658, 4 Sup. Ct.: ‘But if it does not abridge the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States to prohibit him from pursuing his chosen calling, and giving to others the exclusive right of pursuing it, it certainly does deprive him ( to a certain extent) of his liberty; for it takes from him the freedom of adopting and following the pursuit which he prefers, which, as already intimated, is a material part of the liberty of the citizen.’ It is true that these remarks were made in regard to questions of monopoly, but they well describe the rights which are covered by the word ‘liberty,’ as contained in the fourteenth amendment.”

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905): regulations of hours of work for bakers found unconstitutional.

Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 172 (1908):
    
“Such liberty and right embrace the right to make contracts for the purchase of the labor of others, and equally the right to make contracts for the sale of one's own labor; each right, however, being subject to the fundamental condition that no contract, whatever its subject-matter, can be sustained which the law, upon reasonable grounds, forbids as inconsistent with the public interests, or as hurtful to the public order, or as detrimental to the common good,” Id., at 172.  
    
“Of course, the liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties to it. The one has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor. * * * The right of a person to sell his labor upon such terms as he deems proper is, in its essence, the same as the right of the purchaser of labor to prescribe the conditions upon which he will accept such labor from the person offering to sell it,” Id., at 174.  

Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1915):

“The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property-partaking of the nature of each – is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money.”

Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41 (1915):

“It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the Amendment to secure.”

Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 558 (1923): District of Columbia Minimum Wage Law.

“In principle, there can be no difference between the case of selling labor and the case of selling goods.”

Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923):

“While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 278 (1932):

“[N]othing is more clearly settled than that it is beyond the power of a state, ‘under the guise of protecting the public, arbitrarily [to] interfere with private business or prohibit lawful occupations or impose unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions upon them.’”

Morehead v. N.Y. ex rel Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587, 601 (1936):
 
“Nothing is better settled in our constitutional law than that liberty does not mean merely freedom from physical restraint, but includes the right to work for a living by using the powers of brain and muscle in the ordinary activities of mankind.”

Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936):

“That freedom of speech and of the press are rights of the same fundamental character, safeguarded by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by state legislation, has likewise been settled by a series of decisions of this Court beginning with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666, and ending with Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707. The word ‘liberty’ contained in that amendment embraces not only the right of a person to be free from physical restraint, but the right to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties as well. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589.”

Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 492 (1959):

“[R]ight to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the ‘liberty’ and ‘property’ concepts of the Fifth Amendment.”

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572 (1972):

“While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . . guaranteed [by the Fourteenth Amendment], the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    B. Federal Circuits:

    First Circuit:

Wall v. King, 206 F.2d 878, 882 (1st Cir. 1953): drunk driving case.

“Therefore it is unimportant whether, for one purpose or another, a license to operate motor vehicles may properly be described as a mere personal privilege rather than a property right. We have no doubt that the freedom to make use of one’s own property, here a motor vehicle, as a means of getting about from place to place, whether in pursuit of business or pleasure, is a ‘liberty’ which under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be denied or curtailed by a state without due process of law.”

    Second Circuit:

Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 613 F.2d 438, 446 (2nd Cir. 1980):

“It is well-settled that an individual’s liberty can be implicated when a governmentally imposed stigma restricts his ability to seek and obtain employment. This ‘broad and majestic’ principle, Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 571, 92 S.Ct. 2701, embraces interference with ‘the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life.’ Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923). And it is also established that such governmental action cannot be undertaken unless the individual is afforded an opportunity to be heard and to ‘clear his name’.”

Goetz v. Windsor Central School District, 698 F.2d 606, 609 (2nd Cir. 1983):

“Liberty as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment denotes the right of the individual to engage in the common occupations of life and to enjoy privileges recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.”

Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75 (2nd Cir. 2005).

    Third Circuit:

McKnight v. Southeastern Penn. Transp. Authority, 583 F.2d 1229, 1235 (3rd Cir. 1978):

“While this [C]ourt has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty . . guaranteed (by the Fourteenth Amendment), the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    Fourth Circuit:

Catlette v. United States, 132 F.2d 902, 906 (4th Cir. 1943):

“In the words of the Supreme Court, they cover ‘* * * not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, * * * to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’”

Cox v. Northern Virginia Transp. Comm., 551 F.2d 555, 558 (4th Cir. 1976):

“The fourteenth amendment’s guarantee of liberty ‘to engage in any of the common occupations of life’”.

Sciolino v. City of Newport News, 480 F.3d 642, 646 (4th Cir. 2007): “Sciolino’s claim thus arises from the combination of two distinct rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment: (1) the liberty ‘to engage in any of the common occupations of life’”.

    Fifth Circuit:

Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School Dist., 392 F.2d 697, 703 (5th Cir. 1968): right of professional musicians to follow their chosen occupation free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the liberty concept of the Fifth Amendment.

Shaw v. Hospital Authority of Cobb County, 507 F.2d 625, 628 (5th Cir. 1975): “Contemplated within this term is the right to practice any of the common occupations of life, and for others to engage the individual to perform those acts which are his occupation. These rights are within the Fourteenth Amendment.”  

Phillips v. Vandygriff, 711 F.2d 1217, 1222 (5th Cir. 1983):

“‘It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the [fourteenth] Amendment to secure.’ Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41, 36 S.Ct. 7, 10, 60 L.Ed. 131 (1915). See also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) (‘Without doubt, [‘liberty’ in the fourteenth amendment] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life. . . .’); Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 756, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957) (‘A state cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’) (footnote omitted); Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 492, 79 S.Ct. 1400, 1411, 3 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1959) (‘[T]he right to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the ‘liberty’ and ‘property’ concepts of the Fifth Amendment. . . .’); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-74, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2707, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (respondent denied relief because ‘[t]he State, for example, did not invoke any regulations to bar the respondent from all other public employment in state universities. Had it done so, this, again, would be a different case.’). This Circuit has also repeatedly acknowledged the principle that a person has a liberty interest in pursuing an occupation. See, e.g., Ferrell v. Dallas Independent School District, 392 F.2d 697, 707 (5th Cir. 1968); Shaw v. Hospital Authority, 507 F.2d 625, 628 (5th Cir. 1975); Daly v. Sprague, 675 F.2d 716, 727 (5th Cir. 1982).”

Cowan v. Corley, 814 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1987): followed Vandygriff, above.

San Jacinto Savings & Loan v. Kacal, 928 F.2d 697, 704 (5th Cir. 1991): owner of an arcade had a protectible liberty interest in operating her business.

Martin v. Memorial Hosp. at Gulfport, 130 F.3d 1143, 1148 (5th Cir. 1997): quoted Vandygriff.

Stidham v. Tex. Comm'n on Private Sec., 418 F.3d 486, 491 (5th Cir. 2005):

“The Supreme Court has said that ‘the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the [Fourteenth] Amendment to secure[,]’ and this court has ‘confirmed the principle that one has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in pursuing a chosen occupation.’”

    Sixth Circuit:

Wilkerson v. Johnson, 699 F.2d 325, 328 (6th Cir. 1983):

“A complex of rights and duties characterizes any particular liberty or property interest. Generally speaking, freedom to choose and pursue a career, ‘to engage in any of the common occupations of life,’ Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923), qualifies as a liberty interest which may not be arbitrarily denied by the State.”

Bacon v. Patera, 772 F.2d 259, 263 (6th Cir. 1985):

Women’s Medical Professional Corp. v. Baird, 438 F.3d 595, 611 (6th Cir. 2006): “Liberty interests include ‘the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life . . . and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized . . . as essential to the ordinary pursuit of happiness by free men.’”

    Seventh Circuit:

Lawson v. Sheriff of Tippecanoe County, 725 F.2d 1136, 1138 (7th Cir. 1984): “The concept of liberty in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence has long included the liberty to follow a trade, profession, or other calling. This liberty must not be confused with the right to a job; states have no constitutional duty to be employers of last resort; but if a state excludes a person from a trade or calling, it is depriving him of liberty, which it may not do without due process of law.”

Becker v. Illinois Real Estate Admin. and Disciplinary Bd., 884 F.2d 955, 957 (7th Cir. 1989):

“Several professions have been recognized as constituting ‘common occupations.’ These professions include an attorney, Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238-39, 77 S.Ct. 752, 755-56, 1 L.Ed.2d 796, police officer, physician and nurse, Bigby v. City of Chicago, 766 F.2d 1053, 1057 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1056, 106 S.Ct. 793, 88 L.Ed.2d 771; psychologist, Illinois Psychological Ass'n v. Falk, 818 F.2d 1337, 1344 (7th Cir. 1987); and schoolteacher, Thomas v. Board of Examiners, 866 F.2d 225, 227 (7th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).”

Wroblewski v. City of Washburn, 965 F.2d 452, 455 (7th Cir. 1992): “‘It is the liberty to pursue a calling or occupation, and not the right to a specific job, that is secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.’”

Bernard v. United Township High Sch. Dist. No. 30, 5 F.3d 1090, 1092 (7th Cir. 1993): “[T]he Constitution only protects this liberty from state actions that threaten to deprive persons of the right to pursue their chosen occupation. State actions that exclude a person from one particular job are not actionable in suits . . . brought directly under the due process clause.”

    Eighth Circuit:

Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 F. 912 (8th Cir. 1897):

“The right of an individual to carry on his business as he sees fit, and to use such implements or processes of manufacture as he desires to use, provided he follows a lawful avocation, and conducts it in a lawful manner, is entitled to as much consideration as his other personal rights; and the law should afford protection against the efforts of powerful combinations to rob him of that right and coerce his will by intimidating his customers and destroying his patronage.”

Owen v. City of Independence, 560 F.2d 925, 937 (8th Cir. 1977), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 3118, 57 L.Ed.2d 1145 (1978).

Bishop v. Tice, 622 F.2d 349, 352-54 (8th Cir. 1980):

    Ninth Circuit:

Yee Gee v. City and County of San Francisco, 235 F. 757 (N.D. Cal. 1916):

“The right to labor or earn one’s livelihood in any legitimate field of industry or business is a right of property, and any unlawful or unreasonable interference with or abridgment of such right is an invasion thereof, and a restriction of the liberty of the citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution.”

Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 252 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 1958):

“This right to protection by way of injunction against interference with property or contracts or other pecuniary rights, has been applied so as to protect a person in his right to earn a livelihood and to continue in employment unmolested by efforts to enforce void state statutes.”

York v. Story, 324 F.2d 450, 455 fn 9 (9th Cir. 1963).

Ulrich v. City and County of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2002).

    Tenth Circuit:

McGhee v. Draper, 639 F.2d 639, 643 (10th Cir. 1981): “Thus, the discharge will either cause or contribute to the alleged defamation. In either case, the defamed’s liberty ‘to engage in any of the common occupations of life’ is diminished”.

    Eleventh Circuit:

Silverstein v. Gwinnett Hosp. Authority, 861 F.2d 1560, 1567 (11th Cir. 1988): “An individual’s right to work is a liberty or property interest protected by the due process clause of the Georgia Constitution.”

Buxton v. City of Plant City, Fla., 871 F.2d 1037, 1045 (11th Cir. 1989): “Additionally, liberty has been held to denote the right of the individual to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home, to bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as being essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free people.”

    D.C. Circuit:

Old Dominion Dairy Products, Inc. v. Secretary of Defense, 631 F.2d 953, 962 (D.C. Cir. 1980):

“The definition of liberty under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments has never been stated with exactness. Nevertheless, it is clear that the concept encompasses more than mere freedom from bodily restraint, and includes "the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

    C. State courts:

    Alabama:

Ex Parte Rhodes, 202 Ala. 68, 69, 79 So. 462 (1918):
    
“When the people of this state, through their representatives, met in convention to form this state government, they reserved to themselves and their descendants and successors certain rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities, which they did not surrender or cede to the government to be created by the convention. They also exacted guaranties of the government so formed to protect each person in the state, and secure to him the enjoyment and exercise of these rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities, so reserved against encroachment or destruction thereof by other persons, whether majorities or minorities of the whole, or officers of any department of the government itself. Some, but not all, of these rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities, are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, which comprises the first 36 sections of our Constitution.”

State v. Goldstein, 207 Ala. 569, 573, 93 So. 308 (1922): case dealing with price regulations (profiteering):

“‘A person living under the protection of this government has the right to adopt and follow any lawful industrial pursuit not injurious to the community which he may see fit. And as incident to this is the right to labor or employ labor, make contracts in respect thereto upon such terms as may be agreed upon by the parties,’ etc. * * * ‘The right to buy and sell property, and contract in respect thereto, including contracts for labor * * * is protected by the Constitution. If the Legislature without any public necessity has the power to prohibit or restrict the right of contract between private persons in respect of one lawful trade or business, then it may prevent the prosecution of all trades, and regulate all contracts.” Quote from State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179.

State v. Woodall, 225 Ala. 178, 180, 142 So. 838 (1932):

“The right to follow lawful employment of any ordinary and harmless calling, and that of entering the professions duly and reasonably regulated under the police power, are of constitutional guaranty that may not be abridged, and are property rights that may not be arbitrarily denied without due process of law, and as to which the equal protection of the law may not be denied or withheld.”

Board of Cosmetological Examiners v. Gibbons, 238 Ala. 612, 615-16, 193 So. 116 (1940):

“The right to follow any of the common and ordinary occupations of life is an inalienable right, one of the rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to conserve which government exists.”

State v. Polakow’s Realty Experts, Inc., 243 Ala. 441, 10 So.2d 461, 462 (1942): see below quote.

Weill v. State, 250 Ala. 328, 335, 34 So.2d 132 (1948):
    
“And it must be conceded also that ‘the common businesses and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits which are innocent in themselves and which have been followed in all communities from time immemorial must, therefore, be free in the United States to all alike upon the same terms.’ 11 Amer.Jur. sec. 336.’ State v. Polakow’s Realty Experts, supra.”

    Alaska:

Sheley v. Alaska Bar Association, 620 P.2d 640, 643 (Alaska 1980): “the practice of law by qualified persons is a ‘fundamental right’.”

Robison v. Francis, 713 P.2d 259, 265 (Alaska 1986): “employment in the construction industry must be considered a fundamental right entitled to the protection of the privileges and immunities clause.”

    Arizona:

City of Tucson v. Stewart, 45 Ariz. 36, 55, 40 P.2d 72 (1935): ordinance re electricians was arbitrary (also good for unlawful delegations to private entities).

“As was said in Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. Perry, 69 Kan. 297, 76 P. 848, 849, 1 Ann. Cas. 936, 66 L.R.A. 185:
    
“‘The right to follow any lawful vocation, and to make contracts, is as completely within the protection of the Constitution as the right to hold property free from unwarranted seizure, or the liberty to go when and where one will. One of the ways of obtaining property is by contract. The right, therefore, to contract cannot be infringed by the Legislature without violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Every citizen is protected in his right to work where and for whom he will.’”

    Arkansas:

Balesh v. Hot Springs, 173 Ark. 661, 663, 293 S.W. 14 (1927): validity of auction ordinance.

“The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright.” Quote from Butchers’ Union.

Ark. Railroad Comm. v. Castetter, 180 Ark. 770, 22 S.W.2d 993 (1929): case about ice makers granted exclusive franchise; great case for right to work language.

    California:

Wysinger v. Crookshank, 82 Cal. 588, 23 P. 54 (1890):

Ex Parte Kubach, 85 Cal. 274, 24 P. 737 (1890):

“Mr. Cooley in his work on Constitutional Limitations (5th ed. 745) says: ‘The general rule undoubtedly is that any person is at liberty to pursue any lawful calling, and to do so in his. own way, not encroaching upon the rights of others. This general right cannot be taken away. It is not competent, therefore, to forbid any person, or class of persons, whether citizens or resident aliens, offering their services in lawful business, or to subject others to penalties for employing them.’”

Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468, 44 P. 803, (1896): statute requiring barbershops to be closed on Sundays and legal holidays to be unconstitutional.

Ex parte Dickey, 144 Cal. 234, 236-37, 77 P. 924, 925 (1904):

“Under the constitution of the United States and of this state the protection guaranteed in the possession of property, and in the pursuit of happiness is extended, as of necessity it must be, to cover the right to acquire property, and the right to acquire property must and does include the employment of proper means to that end. Says Judge Cooley (Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., p. 889): ‘The general rule undoubtedly is that any person is at liberty to pursue any lawful calling, and to do so in his own way, not encroaching on the rights of others. This general right cannot be done away.’ And this court has said (Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 517): ‘The right to protect and possess property is not more clearly protected by the constitution than the right to acquire. The right to acquire must include the right to use the proper means to attain the end. The right itself would be impotent without the power to use its necessary incidents. The legislature, therefore, cannot prohibit the proper use of the means of acquiring property, except the peace and safety of the state require it.’”

Ex parte Drexel, 147 Cal. 763, 764, 82 P. 429 (1905): anti-trading stamp law held void:

“The liberty mentioned is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential, to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purpose above mentioned. These are individual rights, formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence, which begins with the fundamental proposition that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”

People v. St. John, 108 Cal.App. 779, 784, 288 P. 53 (1930): ordinance against distribution of shopping magazine held void:

“The Constitutions of the United States and of the state of California guarantee certain fundamental rights and, among others, that no persons shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It is to be conceded that advertising, as urged by appellant, is a lawful and useful occupation, and as such, is a property right secured by the fundamental law.”

Whitcomb v. Emerson, 46 Cal.App.2d 263, 1273, 115 P.2d 892 (1941):  The right to labor or earn one’s livelihood in any legitimate field of industry or business is a right of property, and any unlawful or unreasonable interference with, or abridgment of, such right is an invasion thereof and a restriction of the liberty of the citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution. (Yee Gee v. San Francisco, 235 Fed. 757.)

Blumenthal v. Board of Medical Examiners, 18 Cal.Rptr. 501, 368 P.2d 101 (1962): dispensing optician and right to work.

Endler v. Schutzbank, 68 Cal.2d 162, 436 P.2d 297, 65 Cal.Rptr. 297(1968):

“We hold that the alleged conduct of the commissioner, rendering the plaintiff unemployable without affording him a full hearing on the charges against him, transgresses the fundamental principle that the state may deprive no man of liberty or property without due process of law.”

Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby, 5 Cal.3d 1, 17, 485 P.2d 529 (1971):

“The right to work and the concomitant opportunity to achieve economic security and stability are essential to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. As early as 1915, the United States Supreme Court declared that ‘the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of [the Fourteenth] Amendment to secure.’ [Citation.] The California Legislature accords statutory recognition to the right to work by declaring the opportunity to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination a civil right. [Citation.] Limitations on this right may be sustained only after the most careful scrutiny.”

    Colorado:

City of La Junta v. Heath, 38 Colo. 372, 88 P. 459 (1907): peddling water licensing ordinance was void.

Moffitt v. City of Pueblo, 55 Colo. 112, 133 P. 754 (1913):  Every citizen has a natural and constitutional right to engage in any lawful business subject to such reasonable regulation as may apply to all persons engaged in the same kind of business.

City and County of Denver v. Nielson, 194 Colo. 407, 410, 572 P.2d 484 (1977): massage ordinance violated right to work and EP. “Every citizen has a natural and constitutional right to engage in any lawful business subject to such reasonable regulation as may apply to all persons engaged in the same kind of business.”

    Connecticut:

O’Brien’s Petition, 79 Conn. 46, 55, 63 A. 777 (1906):

“The inalienable right of every American citizen to follow any of the common industrial occupations of life does not extend to the pursuit of professions or vocations of such a nature as to require peculiar skill or supervision for the public welfare.”

    Delaware:

Ward v. Ward, 537 A.2d 1063, 1066 (Del.Fam.Ct. 1987):

“The ‘liberty interest’ guaranteed by the Amendment has not been defined with exactitude, but it includes: [T]he right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’”

    Florida:

State ex rel. Fulton v. Ives, 123 Fla. 401, 411, 167 So. 394 (1936): declared act unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection, due process of law, and improper restraint on freedom of contract.

“The right to make contracts of any kind, so long as no fraud or deception is practiced and the contracts are legal in all respects, is an element of civil liberty possessed by all persons who are sui juris.
    
“It is both a liberty and property right and is within the protection of the guaranties against the taking of liberty or property without due process of law.”
    
“Included in the right of personal liberty and the right to private property is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If that right be stricken down or arbitrarily interfered with there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense,” Id., at 412.  

Carpenters’ Dist. Council v. Miami Chapter, 55 So.2d 794 (Fla. 1951).

Lee v. Delmar, 66 So.2d 252, 255 (Fla. 1953): restrictions on real estate salesman void:

“The right to work, earn a living and acquire and possess property from the fruits of one's labor is an inalienable right. There may be certain trades, professions or occupations so clothed with the public interest that they may be regulated by the Legislature in the public interest. When any business, occupation or profession is so clothed with the public interest, then the Legislature must provide the yardstick for such regulation.”

Florida Accountants Assoc. v. Dandelake, 98 So.2d 323, 327 (Fla. 1957): accountancy law at issue, quoted Ives, supra.

    Georgia:

Weatherby v. Pittman, 24 Ga. App. 452, 101 S.E. 131 (1919):  The right to follow a profession, which of course includes the right to be compensated for services rendered, is a property right.

Chaires v. City of Atlanta, 164 Ga. 755, 139 S.E. 559, 55 A.L.R. 230 (1927).

Richardson v. Coker, 188 Ga. 170, 175, 3 S.E.2d 636  (1939):

“The right to work and make a living is one of the highest rights possessed by any citizen. It may be abridged to the extent, and only to the extent, that is necessary reasonably to insure the public peace, safety, health, and like words of the police power.”

DeBerry v. LaGrange, 62 Ga. App. 75, 79, 8 S.E.2d 146 (1940):

“The right to earn a living by pursuing an ordinary occupation is protected by the constitution. This right is fundamental, natural, inherent, and is one of the most sacred and valuable rights of a citizen.”

Muse v. Connell, 62 Ga. App. 296, 303, 8 S.E.2d 100 (1940):

“The right to follow one’s profession, business, or occupation, or to labor, is a valuable property right, protected by the constitution and laws of this State, subject only to such restrictions as the government may impose for the welfare and safety of society. Hughes v. State Board of Examiners, 162 Ga. 246, 256 (134 S.E. 42).”

Weiner v. Fulton County, 113 Ga. App. 343, 345, 148 S.E.2d 143 (1966): The right to practice law by persons authorized by law to do so has been found to be a property right.

    Hawaii:


    Idaho:

Berry v. Summers, 76 Idaho 446, 451, 283 P.2d 1093 (1955):

“The right to follow a recognized and useful occupation is a right protected by the constitutional guaranty of liberty.”

State v. Smith, 81 Idaho 103, 109, 337 P.2d 938 (1959): naturopath’s right to work.

“The right to follow a recognized occupation is a right protected by the constitutional guarantees of liberty.”

    Illinois:

Frorer v. People, 141 Ill. 171, 31 N.E. 395 (1892) (invalidating statute requiring payment in legal tender and prohibiting “Truck Stores”): statute limited the right of a company to sell merchandise to its employees. The court said: “The privilege of contracting is both a liberty and a property right, and if A is denied the right to contract and acquire property in a manner which he has hitherto enjoyed under the law, and which B, C, and D are still allowed by the law to enjoy, it is clear that he is deprived of both liberty and property to the extent that he is thus denied the right to contract. Our constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. (Art. 2, sec. 2.) And says Cooley: ‘The man or the class forbidden the acquisition or enjoyment of property in the manner permitted the community at large, would be deprived of liberty in particulars of primary importance to his or their pursuit of happiness.’”

Eden v. People, 161 Ill. 296, 43 N.E. 1108 (1896): invalidated a statute which required barbershops to close on Sundays, but permitted other businesses to remain open.

People v. Weiner, 271 Ill. 74, 110 N.E. 870 (1915):

“Under the Federal and State constitutions the individual may pursue, without let or hindrance, all such callings or pursuits as are innocent in themselves and not injurious to the public. These are fundamental rights of every person living under this government and the legislature by its enactments cannot interfere with such rights.”

Frazier v. Shelton, 320 Ill. 253, 365, 150 N.E. 696 (1926): law regulating accountants held unconstitutional:

“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. That right is one of the blessings of liberty, and is accorded as a privilege to the citizens of the United States by the preamble to the Federal constitution, and by the Declaration of Independence, under the language, ‘pursuit of happiness.’ The right of a citizen to pursue ordinary trades or callings upon equal terms with all other persons similarly situated is a part of his right to liberty and property.”

Doe v. Jones, 327 Ill. 387, 158 N.E. 703 (1927): surveyor law held unconstitutional.

Cleaning & Dyeing Plant Owners Ass’n. of Chicago v. Sterling, 285 Ill.App. 336, 353, 2 N.E.2d 149 (1936):

“‘The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right.’ Butchers’ Union Slaughter-House & Live Stock Landing Co. v. Crescent City Live Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co., 111 U.S. 746; and the price which one may put upon that which he is to sell or lease is a matter wholly his own.”
 
Scully v. Hallihan, 365 Ill. 185, 191, 6 N.E.2d 176, 179 (1936):

“It is one of the fundamentals of our democratic form of government that every citizen has the inalienable right to follow any legitimate trade, occupation or business which he sees fit. His labor is his property, entitled to the full and equal protection of the law under the due process clause of the Federal constitution. It is also embraced within the constitutional provision guaranteeing to everyone liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 41 L. ed. 832.) This right to pursue any trade or calling is subordinate to the right of the State to limit such freedom of action by statutory regulation where the public health, safety or welfare of society may require.”

Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Wagon Drivers' Union, 371 Ill. 377, 381-82, 21 N.E.2d 308 (1939):

“At common law every man has full freedom in disposing of his own labor or capital and any one who maliciously invades that right by misrepresentation, fraud or coercion is liable, because such acts constitute unlawful competition. (Doremus v. Hennessy, 176 Ill. 608; Purington v. Hinchliff, 219 id. 159.) He has a right to free and open market in which to purchase materials to do business and any one who invades such right without lawful cause commits a legal wrong. (Carlson v. Carpenter Contractors’ Ass’n, 305 Ill. 331, 27 A.L.R. 625; Carpenters’ Union v. Citizens Committee, 333 id. 225, 246.) He has a right to enter into lawful contracts and any one who maliciously interferes by inducing such contracts to be broken, or by doing things which make them impossible of performance, is likewise liable. (Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railroad Co. 151 U.S. 1; Carpenters’ Union v. Citizens Committee, supra.) It is likewise illegal to persuade or coerce persons dealing with one in business into discontinuing such dealings by threats of injury to such customers by means commonly called a secondary boycott. (Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443; Auburn Draying Co. v. Wardell, 227 N.Y. 1; Godin v. Niebuhr, 236 Mass. 350, 128 N.E. 406; Purington v. Hinchliff, supra; Fenske Bros. v. Upholsterers Union, 358 Ill. 239; Wilson v. Hey, 232 id. 389; Beck v. Railway Teamsters' Protective Union, 118 Mich. 497, 77 N.W. 13; 2 Cooley on Torts (4th ed.) p. 199.) These rights constitute property, and access to one's place of business or the enjoyment of the good will attending it are incidents of property.”

People v. Brown, 95 N.E.2d 888 (Ill. 1950): a person’s trade or business is property.

    Indiana:

Kirtley v. State, 227 Ind. 175, 84 N.E.2d 712, 714 (1949): statute regarding the sale of tickets interfered with the liberties and the personal and property rights of a ticket owner; Indiana’s personal liberty clause confers not only freedom from servitude and restraint, but also “the right of everyone to be free in the use of their powers in the pursuit of happiness in such calling as they may choose subject only to the restraints necessary to secure the common welfare.”

    Iowa:

Duncan v. City of Des Moines, 222 Iowa 218, 224, 268 N.W. 547 (1936): act regulating barber prices held invalid as violative of the personal liberty of the citizen. Quoted Adkins, supra.

State v. Harrington, 229 Iowa 1092, 1096, 296 N.W. 221, 223 (1941):

“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life, subject only to reasonable regulations under the police power in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare,”

City of Osceola v. Blair, 231 Iowa 770, 772, 2 N.W.2d 83 (1942):

“It is one of the fundamentals, of our democratic form of government that every citizen has the inalienable right to follow any legitimate trade, occupation, or business which he sees fit. His labor is his property, entitled to the full and equal protection of the law under the due process clause of the Federal Constitution. It is also embraced within the constitutional provision guaranteeing to everyone liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    Kansas:

Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. Perry, 69 Kan. 297, 299, 76 P. 848, 849 (1904):

“The right to follow any lawful vocation, and to make contracts, is as completely within the protection of the Constitution as the right to hold property free from unwarranted seizure, or the liberty to go when and where one will. One of the ways of obtaining property is by contract. The right, therefore, to contract cannot be infringed by the Legislature without violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Every citizen is protected in his right to work where and for whom he will.”

    Kentucky:

Underhill v. Murphy, 117 Ky. 640, 78 S.W. 482 (1904): The right to engage in any business or occupation and make contracts in reference thereto is embraced within the protection of the Constitution.

Lawton v. Stewart Dry Goods Co., 197 Ky. 394, 247 S.W. 14 (1921).

Rawles v. Jenkins, 212 Ky. 287, 291, 279 S.W. 350 (1925):

“Among the inherent and inalienable rights guaranteed to our citizens by our Bill of Rights are (a) ‘the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties,’ and (b) ‘the right of acquiring and protecting property.’ Constitution, section 1, subsections 1 and 5. Not only does the term ‘liberty’ include the right of the citizen to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, 6 R. C. L. 260, Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L. ed. 832, but the right of acquiring property includes the, right to engage in any business or occupation that is not injurious to the public weal.”

Louisville v. Kuhn, 284 Ky. 684, 692, 145 S.W.2d 851 (1940): “The right to labor or earn one’s livelihood in any legitimate field of industry or business is a right of property, and any unlawful or unreasonable interference with or abridgment of such right is an invasion thereof, and a restriction of the liberty of the citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution.”

    Louisiana:

City of Alexandria v. Hall, 171 La. 595, 131 So. 722 (1930): barber shop closure law at issue; held unconstitutional.  

State v. Chisesi, 187 La. 675, 685, 175 So. 453 (1937):

“to deprive a person of his right to pursue his chosen calling deprives him of his liberty, and to prevent his continuing in a lawful business or pursuit in which he is already engaged deprives him of his property.”

Board of Barber Examiners of Louisiana v. Parker, 190 La. 214, 182 So. 485, 512 (1938): act regulating barber prices held invalid. Quoted Allgeyer, Coppage.

Banjavich v. Louisiana Licensing Bd. for Marine Divers, 237 La. 467, 111 So.2d 505 (1959):

“That the pursuit of a legal occupation is a property right cannot be gainsaid. This court, buttressed by authorities of the Supreme Court of the United States, has recognized that the right to engage in a lawful calling is of such a basic nature that the curtailment of the right by oppressive or arbitrary legislation effectuates a deprivation of the complainant’s property without due process and denies him equal protection of the law.”

Banjavich v. Louisiana Licensing Board for Marine Divers, 237 La. 467, 111 So.2d 505, 511 (1959):

“[T]o deprive a person of his right to pursue his chosen calling deprives him of his liberty, and to prevent his continuing in a lawful business or pursuit in which he is already engaged deprives him of his property.”

West v. Winnsboro, 252 La. 605, 211 So.2d 665 (1967): the right to pursue employment or to conduct a business is a property right which equity will protect. The protection extends to any substantial interference produced by unconstitutional legislation.

    Maine:

State v. Latham, 115 Me. 176, 98 A. 578 (1916): law regarding milk producers found unconstitutional.

State of Maine v. Old Tavern Farm, Inc., 133 Me. 468, 471, 180 A. 473 (1935):

“The Constitution of the State of Maine affirmatively secures to all persons an equality of right to pursue any lawful occupation under equal regulation and protection by law.”

Boothby v. City of Westbrook, 138 Me. 117, 122, 23 A.2d 316 (1941): Property is more than the mere thing which a person owns. It includes the right to acquire, use and dispose of it without control or diminution save by the law of the land, and the Constitution protects these essential attributes of property.

Danforth v. State Dept. of Health & Welfare, 303 A.2d 794, 796 (Me. 1973):
 
“Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    Maryland:

Luman v. Hitchens Bros. Co., 90 Md. 14, 28, 44 A. 1051 (1899): certain corps prevented from selling merchandise:

“‘To forbid an individual, or a class, the right to the acquisition or enjoyment of property, in such manner as should be permitted to the community at large, would be to deprive them of liberty, in particulars of primary importance to their pursuit of happiness.’”

State v. Caspare, 115 Md. 7, 80 A. 606 (1911): trading stamps case.

Dasch v. Jackson, 170 Md. 251, 183 A. 534 (1936): Paper Hangers’ Case:

“It is a recognized principle of American constitutional law that every man has the right to labor, to contract, to hold property, and in his own way to pursue happiness. That is liberty. It is implicit in the Declaration of Independence, in the Federal Constitution, and in the constitutions of the several states.”  Id., at 262.

“Property, within the meaning of that guarantee, includes the right to engage in those common occupations or callings which involve no threat to the public welfare, to exercise a choice in the selection of an occupation, and to pursue that occupation in his own way so long as he does not interfere with the rights of others,” Id., at 263-64.

Schneider v. Duer, 170 Md. 326, 336, 184 A. 914 (1936): barber case.

“The right to engage in useful and productive labor is common to all men, Dasch v. Jackson, 170 Md. 251, 183 A. 534, 538, and in a constitutional sense is property, of which one may not be deprived except by due process of law.”

    Massachusetts:

O’Keeffe v. City of Somerville, 190 Mass. 110, 114, 76 N.E. 45 (1906):

“One of the reasons why these methods are allowable is found in the familiar principle that constitutional liberty means ‘the right of one to use his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation’.”

In re Opinion of the Justices to the House of Representatives, 208 Mass. 607, 608, 94 N.E. 848 (1911):

“contracts of sale which always have been held to be within the constitutional right of persons in every State to possess and acquire property, to transact legitimate business and to buy and sell and get gain.”

Town of Milton v. Civil Service Commission, 365 Mass. 368, 312 N.E.2d 188, 192 (Mass. 1974):

“[i]t is certainly true that the opportunity to earn a living is a fundamental right in our society.”

    Michigan:

People v. Victor, 287 Mich. 506, 512, 283 N.W. 666 (1939):

“The right to engage in any business not harmful to the public is guaranteed by the Constitution. Carolene Products Co. v. Thomson, 276 Mich. 172. Consequently, if the giving of a premium with the sale of gasoline is a legitimate business practice, with no detrimental effects to the public health, morals, safety and general welfare, the practice may not be prohibited by the legislature and a statute doing so results in a deprivation of property and liberty without due process of law.”

    Minnesota:

State ex rel Pavlik v. Johannes, 194 Minn. 10, 19, 259 N.W. 537 (1935):

“‘The right to labor or earn one's livelihood in any legitimate field of industry or business is a right of property, and any unlawful or unreasonable interference with or abridgment of such right is an invasion thereof, and a restriction of the liberty of the citizen as guaranteed by the Constitution.’ Yee Gee v. City and County of San Francisco (D. C.) 235 F. 757, 759.”

Brooks v. Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 262 Minn. 253, 263, 114 N.W.2d 647, 654 (1962): an individual’s occupation is property within the meaning of the law and entitled to protection as such.

    Mississippi:

Wilby v. State, 93 Miss. 767, 772-73, 47 So. 465, 466-67 (1908):

“[l]iberty, in its broad sense, must consist of the right to follow any of the ordinary callings of life without being trammeled . . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. . . . It was formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the [D]eclaration of [I]ndependence . . . This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.”

Vicksburg v. Mullane, 106 Miss. 199, 63 So. 412 (1913): privilege tax does not apply to plumber.

Knight v. Johns, 161 Miss. 519, 137 So. 509 (1931): ordinance regulating barber shop hours held unconstitutional.

Shilling v. State, 143 Miss. 709, 720, 109 So. 737 (1926): quoted Butchers’ Union.

Moore v. Grillis, 205 Miss. 865, 39 So.2d 505, 511 (1949):

“Liberty, in its broad sense, must consist in the right to follow any of the ordinary callings of life without being trammeled.”

    Missouri:

Kusnetzky v. Security Ins. Co., 313 Mo. 143, 157, 281 S.W. 47 (Mo. 1926): It is not within the power of the Legislature to forbid a man to transact any business otherwise perfectly lawful.

Heath v. Motion Picture Machine Operators Union, 365 Mo. 934, 942, 290 S.W.2d 152, 157-58 (Mo. 1956):

“The Fourteenth Amendment has been construed as including within the fundamental rights conferred by it an individual’s right to earn a livelihood at any common occupation. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41. Labor union members have, under the constitutionally protected freedom of speech, the right to lawfully communicate the facts to the public concerning the conduct of another’s business. So that it is not a conclusive answer to the instant question to say that the fact that the picketing in the instant case (through which members of the public were informed that a union operator was not employed at the Hillcrest) was unlawful solely because it might affect adversely or even destroy one’s constitutional right to earn a living with his own hands. That is because the basic right to work as one chooses may coexist with the right of others to communicate the facts concerning how one is exercising his right to work as he chooses.”

    Montana:

State v. Gateway Mortuaries, 87 Mont. 225, 236-37, 287 P. 156 (1930):

“Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property — partaking of the nature of each — is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long-established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich; for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property, save by working for money.”

Garden Spot Market v. State Bd. of Equalization, 141 Mont. 382, 378 P.2d 220 (1963): “The Killum Dead Trading Stamp Case.”

Wadsworth v. State, 275 Mont. 287, 299, 911 P.2d 1165 (1996): state employee’s right to work after hours:

“the opportunity to pursue employment is, nonetheless, necessary to enjoy the right to pursue life’s basic necessities. * * * As a practical matter, employment serves not only to provide income for the most basic of life’s necessities, such as food, clothing, and shelter for the worker and the worker’s family, but for many, if not most, employment also provides their only means to secure other essentials of modern life, including health and medical insurance, retirement, and day care. We conclude that without the right to the opportunity to pursue employment, the right to pursue life’s basic necessities would have little meaning, because it is primarily through work and employment that one exercises and enjoys this latter fundamental constitutional right. Accordingly, we hold that the opportunity to pursue employment, while not specifically enumerated as a fundamental constitutional right under Article II, section 3 of Montana’s constitution is, notwithstanding, necessarily encompassed within it and is itself a fundamental right because it is a right ‘without which other constitutionally guaranteed rights would have little meaning’.”

    Nebraska:

Low v. Rees Printing Co., 41 Neb. 127, 59 N.W. 362 (1894): limits of hours of work void.

Hanson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 160 Neb. 669, 696, 71 N.W.2d 526 (1955):

“We also think the right to work is one of the most precious liberties that man possesses. Man has as much right to work as he has to live, to be free, to own property, or to join a church of his own choice for without freedom to work the others would soon disappear. It is a fundamental human right which the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment protects from improper infringement by the federal government. To work for a living in the occupations available in a community is the very essence of personal freedom and opportunity that it was one of the purposes of these amendments to make secure. Liberty means more than freedom from servitude. The constitutional guarantees are our assurance that the citizen will be protected in the right to use his powers of mind and body in any lawful calling.”

    Nevada:

Ex parte Boyce, 27 Nev. 299, 329-30, 75 P. 1 (1904): 8 hour work for mining.

“Labor properly directed creates wealth, and all honest toil is noble and commendable. The right to acquire and hold property guarantied by our constitution is one of the most essential for the existence and happiness of man, and for our purposes here we may consider it to be the cornerstone in the temple of our liberties, and that it implies and includes the right to labor. It may also be granted that labor, the poor man's patrimony, the creator of wealth, and upon which all must depend for sustenance, is the highest species of property, and the right to toil is as sacred and secure as the millions of the wealthy; but individual rights, however great, are subject to certain limitations necessary for the good of others and the community, and inherent in every well-regulated government.”

    New Hampshire:

State v. Ramseyer, 73 N. H. 31, 35, 58 A. 958 (1904):

“No proposition is now more firmly settled than that it is one of the fundamental rights and privileges of every American citizen to adopt and follow such lawful industrial pursuit, not injurious to the community, as he may see fit.”

State v. Lothrops-Farnham Co., Inc., 84 N.H. 322, 150 A. 551 (1930): trading stamps case: law requiring a license by tradesmen using trading stamps in connection with sales of merchandise is unconstitutional, being an unwarrantable interference with the constitutional right of acquiring and possessing property.

    New Jersey:

Cameron v. International, & c., Union No. 384, 118 N.J. Eq. 11, 20, 176 A. 692 (1935):

The “‘inalienable right to earn a living.’ This is a property right guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the federal constitution, and by the state constitution.”

Lane Distributors, Inc. v. Tilton,  7 N.J. 349, 362, 81 A.2d 786 (1951):

“The right of a person to engage in a business of his choice is a property right”.

    New Mexico:

State v. Spears, 57 N.M. 400, 409-10, 259 P.2d 356 (1953):

“The right of a citizen under our Constitution to follow any legitimate business, occupation, or calling which he may see fit to engage in, and to use such right as a means of livelihood, is fully secured, but it is subject to the paramount right of the State to impose upon the enjoyment of such a right a reasonable regulation which the public welfare may require.”

    New York:

In re Jacobs, 98 N.Y. 98, 106-07 (1885): case of making cigars.

“Liberty, in its broad sense as understood in this country, means the right, not only of freedom from actual servitude, imprisonment or restraint, but the right of one to use his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation. All laws, therefore, which impair or trammel these rights, which limit one in his choice of a trade or profession, or confine him to work or live in a specified locality, or exclude him from his own house, or restrain his otherwise lawful movements (except as such laws may be passed in the exercise by the legislature of the police power, which will be noticed later), are infringements upon his fundamental rights of liberty, which are under constitutional protection.”

People v. Gillson, 109 N.Y. 389, 398-99, 17 N.E. 343 (1888):

“The term ‘liberty’ as used in the Constitution is not dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen as by incarceration, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to be free in the enjoyment of the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. Liberty, in its broad sense, as understood in this country, means the right not only of freedom from servitude, imprisonment or restraint, but the right of one to use his faculties in all lawful ways to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation.”

General Baking Co. v. City of Saratoga Springs, 149 Misc. 92, 267 N.Y.S. 314 (1933): “The business of the plaintiffs is the selling of bread and cake and it is classed as a common calling.”

Matter of Sundram v. Niagara Falls, 77 Misc.2d 1002, 357 N.Y.S.2d 943 (1973):

    North Carolina:

State v. Ray, 131 N.C. 814, 815, 42 S.E. 960 (1902): defendant was charged with violation of an ordinance requiring the closing of stores at 7:30 p.m., excepting Saturdays. The court stated:

“It must be admitted that the enforcement of this ordinance would be to deprive the defendant of his natural right — would be to interfere with the free use and enjoyment of his property, used in such a way as not to interfere with the rights of others. It is not shown, nor is it suggested, that defendant’s keeping his store open after 7:30 interfered with the rights of anyone else. It was said that the other merchants in Scotland Neck were willing to close their stores at 7:30, but the defendant was not, and the ordinance was passed to compel him to do so, for the reason that if he kept open the others would be compelled to do so, or to give the defendant the benefit of the trade of the town after that time. But did this give the commissioners the right to close the defendant’s store?

“It would seem that no legislative power exists, under our form of government and our ideas of personal liberty, as to allow such interference with one’s right of ownership and dominion over his own property, except such interference be exercised for the protection and benefit of the public. When such interference is authorized, it is under the doctrine of eminent domain, or what is known as the ‘police power of the government.’ The attempted exercise of the power in this instance is clearly not under the doctrine of eminent domain, but it is said to be under the police power of the government. If the state could exercise such power (and we do not say it could), can a municipal corporation do so without express authority from the state?”

McCormick v. Proctor, 217 N.C. 23, 6 S.E.2d 870, 876 (1940): “The right to conduct a lawful business, or to earn a livelihood, is regarded as fundamental.”

    North Dakota:

State v. Cromwell, 72 N.D. 565, 573, 9 N.W.2d 914 (1943):

“Thus liberty ‘includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or vocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out these purposes to a successful conclusion. Within the meaning of the term ‘liberty’ is also included the right to buy and sell, to select freely such tradesmen as the citizen himself may desire to patronize, to manufacture, to acquire property, to live in a community, to have a free and open market, the right of free speech, of self-defense against unlawful violence, and, in general, the opportunity to do those things which are ordinarily done by free men.’”

    Ohio:

Crosby v. Rath, 136 Ohio St. 352, 355-56, 25 N.E.2d 934 (1940):

“The right to contract, the right to do business and the right to labor freely and without restraint are all constitutional rights equally sacred, and the privilege of free speech cannot be used to the exclusion of other constitutional rights nor as an excuse for unlawful activities in interference with another’s business * * *.”

Cincinnati v. Correll, 141 Ohio St. 535, 540, 49 N.E.2d 412 (1943):

“the business of barbering is a lawful business, and that the right to carry on such business is a property right constitutionally protected against unwarranted and arbitrary interference by legislative bodies.”

    Oklahoma:

State ex rel. Short v. Riedell, 109 Okla. 35, 39, 233 P. 684 (1924): act regulating accountancy void, quoted Allgeyer.  

“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated as such under the phrase, ‘pursuit of happiness,’ in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that ‘All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’

“To this has been added, by the Bill of Rights of this state, ‘and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.’ When these words from the Declaration of Independence were quoted in the Bill of Rights with the added words, ‘and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry,’ it was for the purpose of stressing the inherent right of the individual as against unnecessary encroachment upon those rights by the state.”

Nation v. Chism, 154 Okla. 50, 52, 6 P.2d 766 (1932):

“The right to practice the trade of barbering is one of the common occupations of life. The barber has a legal right to practice his trade without hindrance.”
    
“Under the provisions of section 2, art. 2, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, all persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry. Where an attempt is made by any individual, without lawful authority, to deprive them of any of those rights, the courts of justice of this state are open to them, and speedy and certain remedy must be afforded them for such a wrong. Section 6, art. 2, of the Constitution. This court will not close its ears when citizens of the state, compelled to abandon a lawful occupation, pay out money to prevent prosecution, or submit to arrest, plead that there is no authority for such interference with their rights and that the asserted authority therefor was never enacted by the Legislature.”

    Oregon:

Ex parte Northrup, 41 Or. 489, 492, 69 P. 445 (1902):

“Every individual, under the constitution, is entitled as of right to the greatest degree of freedom in action compatible with a just preservation of equal rights and privileges to every other citizen and the promotion of the public welfare. This is civil liberty. The fundamental principle upon which it is based is equality under the law, and it signifies not only freedom of the citizen from servitude and restraint, but accords to every one the right to be left free in the use of his powers and faculties, and to adopt and pursue such vocations and employment as his untrammeled will may suggest, subject only to such restraint as is necessary to secure the general welfare. The right of property, in its broad sense, is not only the right of possession and enjoyment, but also the right to secure it through any lawful industry, pursuit, or calling adopted in the exercise of one's liberty, which, it is said, `is the foundation of all wealth’ * * *.”

Christian v. LaForge, 194 Or. 450, 475, 242 P.2d 797 (Or. 1952):

“It is the consensus of judicial opinion, state and federal, that the right of an individual engaged in an inherently lawful occupation to fix the price for which he will render personal service is a part of the liberty reserved to him against governmental encroachment, protected by the Constitutions, both State and Federal.”

    Pennsylvania:

Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. 431, 6 A. 354 (1886): regulation of laborers unconst.

“The Act is an infringement alike of the right of the employer and the employee; more than this, it is an insulting attempt to put the laborer under a legislative tutelage, which is not only degrading to his manhood, but subversive of his rights as a citizen of the United States. He may sell his labor for what he thinks best, whether money or goods, just as his employer may sell his iron or coal, and any and every law that proposes to prevent him from so doing is an infringement of his constitutional privileges, and consequently vicious and void.”

Com. v. Brown, 8 Pa. Super. 339 (1898):

(p. 353): “The right to acquire, possess and protect property includes the right to make reasonable contracts, which shall be under the protection of the law. The word ‘liberty’ as used in these constitutional declarations means more than freedom of locomotion. It includes and comprehends among other things freedom of speech, the right of self defense against unlawful violence, the right to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, to pursue any lawful trade or avocation, and to freely buy and sell as others may”.

Lower court in this case: “We say liberty, because liberty includes the right to make contracts, and to acquire and enjoy property. Labor is property, and every laboring man has the indefeasible right to enter into any contract for the sale of his labor that in his opinion will be the most advantageous and remunertive to himself, provided he does not infringe upon the rights of others in so doing.”

Dorrington v. Manning, 135 Pa. Super. 194, 201, 4 A.2d 886 (1939):

“The right to work, however, in a general sense, constitutes a property right, the continued interference with which equity will enjoin where the legal remedy is inadequate.”

Adler v. Montefiore Hosp. Ass’n of Western Pennsylvania, 450 Pa. 60, 311 A.2d 634, 640-41 (Pa. 1973):  

Secretary of Revenue v. John’s Vending Corporation, 453 Pa. 488, 492, 309 A.2d 358 (1973): “every citizen has an inalienable right to engage in lawful employment”.

Protection of one’s reputation is a fundamental right classified with life, liberty and property. Article I, Declaration of Rights, Pennsylvania Constitution, Sections 1, 11.

Hunter v. Port Authority of Allegheny County,  277 Pa. Super. 4, 11, 419 A.2d 631 (1980):

“The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted article I, section 1, as guaranteeing an individual's right to engage in any of the common occupations of life.”

    Rhode Island:

State v. Dalton, 22 R.I. 77, 86, 46 A. 234 (1900):

“Liberty, in its broad sense, as understood in this country, means the right not only of freedom from servitude, imprisonment, or restraint, but the right of one to use his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation.”

Berberian v. Lussier, 87 R.I. 226, 231, 139 A.2d 869, 872 (1958):

“‘Liberty, as meant by the clause, is a broad concept including not only freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, the right of the individual to engage in the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, and generally to enjoy privileges long recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people.’ In re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives Bill 85-H-7748, 519 A.2d 578, 581 (R.I. 1987) (citing Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)); see also Berberian, 87 R.I. at 231, 139 A.2d at 872 (the liberty which is guaranteed to every person by both our state and federal constitutions includes the right to be free from unreasonable interference in the pursuit of a livelihood).”

In re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives Bill 85-H-7748, 519 A.2d 578, 581 (R.I. 1987):

“Liberty, as meant by the clause, is a broad concept including not only freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, the right of the individual to engage in the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, and generally to enjoy privileges long recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people.”

    South Carolina:

Miller v. Greenville, 134 S.C. 314, 317-18, 132 S.E. 591 (1926):

“The business of an auctioneer is a lawful and useful one; from time immemorial it has been recognized as such. It is a common right. * * * Selling goods or any property at public auction is legitimate and a common right. Any citizen has a right to sell any property he owns, either by person, agent, or auctioneer.”

    South Dakota:

Scougal v. State of South Dakota, 3 S.D. 55, 51 N.W. 858, 15 L.R.A. 477-84 (1892):

“It necessarily follows from the rules above laid down that, if a business is offensive to the community, or injurious to society, and is to be prohibited, it must be prohibited as to all. If it is regulated and controlled, it must be so regulated and controlled as to leave the business or calling free, under such restraints as the Legislature may impose, to be exercised alike by all. The government, under the guise of regulation, cannot prohibit or destroy. It cannot deprive any citizen of his right to pursue a calling, occupation or business not necessarily injurious to the community, who is willing to comply with all reasonable regulations imposed upon it.”

    Tennessee:

Moyers v. City of Memphis, 135 Tenn. 263, 186 S.W. 105, 112 (1916):

“The liberty of contract is one of the inalienable rights of a citizen. The right to pursue a lawful calling embraces the right to enter into all contracts proper, necessary, and essential to the carrying out of the purpose of such calling. * * *.”

Campbell v. McIntyre, 165 Tenn. 47, 52 S.W.2d 162 (1932): law licensing practice of public accounting held unconstitutional as violative of personal rights.

Wright v. Wiles, 173 Tenn. 334, 117 S.W.2d 736 (1938): act to regulate photographers.

State v. Greeson, 174 Tenn. 178, 184, 124 S.W.2d 253 (1939): barbers.

“On the other hand, the Constitution guarantees to the individual personal liberty, the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and the right to contract with respect to his labor.”

Large v. Dick, 207 Tenn. 664, 343 S.W.2d 693, 694 (1960):

“[e]very man has the right of property in his own labor, and the right to work without interference; and whoever intentionally interferes with this right is liable in tort for the damage caused. . . .”

    Texas:

Ex parte Brown, 38 Tex. Crim. 295, 303-04, 42 S.W. 554 (1897):

“What these fundamental rights are it is not easy to enumerate, the courts preferring not to describe and define them in a general classification, but to decide each case as it may arise. The following, however, have been held to be embraced among them: ‘Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.’ **** These are inalienable and indefeasible rights, which no man, or set of men, by even the largest majority, can take from the citizen. They are absolute and inherent in the people, and all free governments must recognize and respect them. Therefore it is incumbent upon the courts to give to the constitutional provisions which guaranty them a liberal construction, and to hold inoperative and void all statutes which attempt to destroy or interfere with them. Cool. Const. Lim. (35), 44. It can hardly be questioned that the right to possess property is one of these rights, and that that right embraces the privilege of a citizen to keep in his possession property for another.”

Owens v. State, 53 Tex. Crim. 105, 108-09, 112 S.W. 1075 (1908):

“A person living under the protection of this government has the right to adopt and follow any lawful industrious pursuit not injurious to the community, which he may see fit. And as incident to this, is the right to labor or employ labor, make contracts in respect thereto upon such terms as may be agreed upon by the parties, to enforce all lawful contracts, to sue and give evidence and to inherit, purchase, lease, sell and convey property of every kind. Is not a man’s wages or his time ‘property’? If so, has he not the right under the Constitution to sell and convey such property? If a law be passed that prohibits the purchase of his ‘time’ or labor, does it not abridge his right of contract? Does it not deprive him of selling what is his? Does it not follow that a prohibitive tax upon parties who would buy his labor, deprives the laborer of the right to sell ‘original foundation of other property’? The enjoyment or deprivation of these rights and privileges, constitutes the essential distinction between freedom and slavery, between liberty and oppression.’ What possible good could flow from a statute of the kind under consideration, we are at a loss to know. To say that a man working for wages, whatever the amount of the wages may be, can only sell his time for certain purposes and if he does sell for those purposes not authorized by the statute, the party to whom he sells must pay a $5,000 tax to the State, is a ruthless invasion of the right of free contract, an abridgment of personal liberty and the right of property, since the laborer’s muscle is all the property he has, in many instances, and an invasion of the Constitution of this State and of the United States, and we so hold.”

Webb v. Cooks’, Waiters’ & Waitresses’ Union, 205 S.W. 465, 468 (Tex.Civ.App.-1918).

Ex parte Martin, 127 Tex. Crim. 25, 74 S.W.2d 1017 (1934): The liberty thus guaranteed means, among other things, the right to pursue any lawful business.

Hotel & Rest. Employees’ International Alliance and Bartenders International League of America v. Longley, 160 S.W.2d 124, 127 (Tex.App. 1942):
    
“In the American way of life there are, as declared in the historical Declaration of Independence, some rights which are ‘unalienable.’ As said in Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 427, 41 L.Ed. 832, quoted by Chief Justice Conner in Webb v, Cooks’, Waiters’ & Waitresses’ Union, Tex. Civ. App. 205 S.W. 465, 468, ‘The right to follow any of thee common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence. * * * This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.’ Exactly the same thing is true, we should say, of the right to make a lawful contract. ‘All persons who are sui juris are free to make whatever contracts they please as long as no fraud or deception is practiced and the contracts are legal in all respects. The right to acquire, to hold and to dispose of property includes, in general, the right to make contracts,’ 12 C.J. 949, § 460; 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 210. The right of contract under any circumstances under which it may exist necessarily implies the right to refuse to contract. Any contract which one may make under constitutional protection of his right of contract, he may refuse to make under the same constitutional protection. There is, in our opinion, no lawful power, legislative, executive or judicial in this state; or in this Nation, to authorize picketing of a man's place of business as part of the means of effecting a boycott designed to coerce the owner into signing a contract he otherwise would not sign.”

Font v. Carr, 867 S.W.2d 873 (Tex.App.-Houston 1993)

    Utah:

Saville v. Corless, 46 Utah 495, 151 P. 51 (1915):

“We think it also offends against constitutional rights to enjoy, acquire, and possess property, the most valuable of which is that of alienation — the right to vend and sell.”
 
    Vermont:


    Virginia:

Young v. Commonwealth, 101 Va. 853, 862-63, 45 S.E. 327, 328-29 (1903):

“The word ‘liberty’ as used in the Constitution of the United States and the several states, has frequently been construed, and means more than mere freedom from restraint. It means not merely the right to go where one chooses, but to do such acts as he may judge best for his interest, not inconsistent with the equal rights of others; that is, to follow such pursuits as may be best adapted to his faculties, and which will give him the highest enjoyment. The liberty mentioned is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purpose above mentioned. These are individual rights, formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence, which begins with the fundamental proposition that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Richmond, F. & P. R. Co. v. City of Richmond, 145 Va. 225, 133 S.E. 800, 803 (1926):

“Man as an individual possesses certain rights which are called inherent rights, inborn and inbred, the gift of his Maker, and essential to his existence and well-being, such as the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which are not surrendered by entering into organized society. They existed before society was organized and are not surrendered by entering into the organization.”

    Washington:

State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424, 30 P. 729 (1892) (applying art. I, § 12 to the medical profession); In re Habeas Corpus of Camp, 38 Wash. 393 (applying art. I, § 12 to fruit and vegetable peddlers); City of Spokane v. Macho, 51 Wash. 322, 98 P. 755 (1909) (applying art. I, § 12 to employment agencies); Seattle v. Dencker, 58 Wash. 501, 108 Pac. 1086 (1910) (applying art. I, § 12 to retail sales); State v. W.W. Robinson Co., 84 Wash. 246, 146 P. 628 (1915) (applying art. I, § 12 to cereal and flour mills).

State v. Smith, 42 Wash. 237, 84 P. 851  (1906):

“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated as such under the phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence. It commenced with the fundamental proposition that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.”

    West Virginia:

State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179, 10 S.E. 285 (1889):

“A person living under the protection of this government has the right to adopt and follow any lawful industrial pursuit not injurious to the community, which he may see fit. And, as incident to this, is the right to labor and employ labor, make contracts in respect thereto, upon such terms as may be agreed upon by the parties.”

Lawrence v. Barlow, 77 W. Va. 289, 87 S.E. 380 (1915):

“The term ‘liberty’ as used in the Constitution is not dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen as by incarceration, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to be free in the enjoyment of the faculties with which he has been endowed by his Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. Liberty, in its broad sense, as understood in this country, means the right not only of freedom from servitude, imprisonment or restraint, but the right of one to use his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful calling, and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation.' People v. Gillson, 109 N.Y. 398. The above is quoted approvingly in State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179. ‘A person living under the protection of his government has the right to adopt and follow any lawful industrial pursuit, not injurious to the community, which he may see fit. And, as incident to this, is the right to labor or employ labor, make contracts in respect thereto upon such terms as may be agreed upon by the parties, to enforce all lawful contracts, to sue, and give evidence, and to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, and convey property of every kind. The enjoyment or deprivation of these rights and privileges constitutes the essential distinction between freedom and slavery; between liberty and oppression. These principles have been fully recognized and announced in many decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, and other courts.’”

Major v. DeFrench, 169 W. Va. 241, 286 S.E.2d 688 (1982): liberty interest.

    Wisconsin:


    Wyoming:

State v. City of Sheridan, 25 Wyo. 347, 170 P. 1 (1918): cement layer licensing ordinance was void as violative of inalienable right to work.

State ex rel. Newman v. City of Laramie, 40 Wyo. 74, 82, 275 P. 106 (1929):

“It must be admitted that the enforcement of this ordinance would be to deprive the defendant of his natural right — would be to interfere with the free use and enjoyment of his property, used in such a way as not to interfere with the rights of others.”

END.