Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld (American jurist, writing in the 1910s) observed that courts and jurists used "right" sloppily to mean four different things. He disentangled them and arranged each against its correlative (what it means for the other party) and its opposite (what negates it in the same party):
| Jural concept | Correlative (in other) | Opposite (in sameparty) |
|---|---|---|
| Right/Claim (I can demand) | Duty (you must) | No-right |
| Liberty/Privilege (I may) | No-right (you cannot demand I not) | Duty |
| Power (I can change legal relations) | Liability (you are subject to my change) | Disability |
| Immunity (you cannot change my relations) | Disability (you lack power) | Liability |
Examples:
• My right that you not trespass correlates with your duty not to trespass.
• My liberty to walk on a public road correlates with your no-right to stop me.
• My power to sell my land (creating a new owner) subjects you to a liability — your rights vis-à- vis the land change without your consent.
• My immunity under the Constitution means the State has a disability — it cannot (without lawful process) extinguish my fundamental rights.
Hohfeld matters because it makes legal reasoning precise. In constitutional litigation, for instance, the difference between a liberty ("the press may publish") and a claim-right ("the citizen can demand access to information") determines what remedy a court can give.