restricted its coverage to ‘very limited rights of national citizenship’ and held that clause [sic] did not protect an individual’s right to pursue an economic livelihood against his own state.” Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220, 229 (6th Cir.2002). Although there has been some recent speculation that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should have a broader meaning, see Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689 (1999) (Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, dissenting) (speculating that the development of the Privileges and Immunities Clause was prematurely stifled by the Slaughter-House Cases), the Tenth Circuit has made clear that the Slaughter House Cases remain good law unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise. See Powers v. Harris, 379 F.3d 1208, 1214 (10th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). 2. Equal Protection and Due Process Clause
holding that slaughter house cases remained good law and prevented a privileges and immunities challenge to a state licensinglaw recognizing common law privileges holding that direct public employment is not a right protected by the privileges and immunities clause holding that new hampshire policy which restricted practice of law by outofstate residents violated privileges and immunities clause holding that privileges and immunities clause protected right of noncitizen to engage in construction work and noting that the pursuit of a common calling is one of the most fundamental of those privileges protected by the clause