The Civil Rights Cases United States v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 15 October 1883 |
| Parties | 'THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES.' UNITED STATES v. STANLEY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Sol. Gen. Phillips, for plaintiff, the United States.
No counsel for defendants, Stanley, Ryan, Nichols, and Singleton.
These cases are all founded on the first and second sections of the act of congress known as the 'Civil Rights Act,' passed March 1, 1875, entitled 'An act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights.' 18 St. 335. Two of the cases, those against Stanley and Nichols, are indictments for denying to persons of color the accommodations and privileges of an inn or hotel; two of them, those against Ryan and Singleton, are, one an information, the other an indictment, for denying to individuals the privileges and accommodations of a theater, the information against Ryan being for refusing a colored person a seat in the dress circle of Maguire's theater in San Francisco; and the indictment against Singleton being for denying to another person, whose color is not stated, the full enjoyment of the accommodations of the theater known as the Grand Opera House in New York, 'said denial not being made for any reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race and color, and regardless of any previous condition of servitude.' The case of Robinson and wife against the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company was an action brought in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Tennessee, to recover the penalty of $500 given by the second section of the act; and the gravamen was the refusal by the conductor of the railroad company to allow the wife to ride in the ladies' car, for the reason, as stated in one of the counts, that she was a person of African descent. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendants in this case upon the merits under a charge of the court, to which a bill of exceptions was taken by the plaintiffs. The case was tried on the assumption by both parties of the validity of the act of congress; and the principal point made by the exceptions was that the judge allowed evidence to go to the jury tending to show that the conductor had reason to suspect that the plaintiff, the wife, was an improper person, because she was in company with a young man whom he supposed to be a white man, and on that account inferred that there was some improper connection between them; and the judge charged the jury, in substance, that if this was the conductor's bona fide reason for excluding the woman from the car, they might take it into consideration on the question of the liability of the company. The case is brought here by writ of error at the suit of the plaintiffs. The cases of Stanley, Nichols, and Singleton come up on certificates of division of opinion between the judges below as to the constitutionality of the first and second sections of the act referred to; and the case of Ryan, on a writ of error to the judgment of the circuit court for the district of California sustaining a demurrer to the information.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 5-7 intentionally omitted] Wm. M. Randolph, for plaintiffs in error, Robinson and wife.
[Argument of Counsel on Pages 7-8 intentionally omitted] W. Y. C. Humes, for defendant in error, the Memphis & Charleston R. Co.
It is obvious that the primary and important question in all the cases is the constitutionality of the law; for if the law is unconstitutional none of the prosecutions can stand.
The sections of the law referred to provide as follows:
Are these sections constitutional? The first section, which is the principal one, cannot be fairly understood without attending to the last clause, which qualifies the preceding part. The essence of the law is, not to declare broadly that all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns PUBLIC CONVEYANCES, AND THEATERS; BUT That such enjoyment shall not be subject to any conditions applicable only to citizens of a particular race or color, or who had been in a previous condition of servitude. In other words, it is the purpose of the law to declare that, in the enjoyment of the accommodations and privileges of inns, public conveyances, theaters, and other places of public amusement, no distinction shall be made between citizens of different race or color, or between those who have, and those who have not, been slaves. Its effect is to declare that in all inns, public conveyances, and places of amusement, colored citizens, whether formerly slaves or not, and citizens of other races, shall have the same accommodations and privileges in all inns, public conveyances, and places of amusement, as are enjoyed by white citizens; and vice versa. The second section makes it a penal offense in any person to deny to any citizen of any race or color, regardless of previous servitude, any of the accommodations or privileges mentioned in the first section.
Has congress constitutional power to make such a law? Of course, no one will contend that the power to pass it was contained in the constitution before the adoption of the last three amendments. The power is sought, first, in the fourteenth amendment, and the views and arguments of distinguished senators, advanced while the law was under consideration, claiming authority to pass it by virtue of that amendment, are the principal arguments adduced in favor of the power. We have carefully considered those arguments, as was due to the eminent ability of those who put them forward, and have felt, in all its force, the weight of authority which always invests a law that congress deems itself competent to pass. But the responsibility of an independent judgment is now thrown upon this court; and we are bound to exercise it according to the best lights we have.
The first section of the fourteenth amendment,—which is the one relied on,—after declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, and of the several states, is prohibitory in its character, and prohibitory upon the states. It declares that 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' It is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws. It not only does this, but, in order that the national will, thus declared, may not be a mere brutum fulmen, the last section of the amendment invests congress with power to enforce it by appropriate legislation. To enforce what? To enforce the prohibition. To adopt appropriate legislation for correcting the effects of such prohibited state law and state acts, and thus to render them effectually null, void, and innocuous. This is the legislative power conferred upon congress, and this is the whole of it. It does not invest congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of state legis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brennon B. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cnty.
...State (1967) 55 Cal.L.Rev. 1247, 1250 [(Tobriner & Grodin)].) After the United States Supreme Court, in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) 109 U.S. 3, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835 ..., invalidated the first federal public accommodation statute, California joined a number of other states in enacting ......
-
Mulkey v. Reitman
...conceded that 'Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the (Fourteenth) amendment' (Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835), it seems to me that any sound analysis of the constitutionality of section 26 must begin with the well established......
-
Owino v. Corecivic, Inc., Case No.: 17-CV-1112 JLS (NLS)
...will not be impaired by the state. See Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 349 (1974) ("In 1883, this Court in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), affirmed the essential dichotomy set forth in that Amendment between deprivation by the State,subject to scrutiny under its provi......
-
MedValUSA Health Programs v. MEMBERWORKS
...also L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d Ed.1988) § 18.1, p. 1688. Since the civil rights cases; see United States v. Stanley, 109 U.S. 3, 4, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883); the United States Supreme Court has maintained that, against private conduct, "however discriminatory or wrong......
-
Qualified Immunity and the Colorblindness Fallacy: Why 'Black Lives [Don't] Matter' to the Country's High Court
...sat on the Court the year after Plessy was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 72. The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 26 (1883) (Harlan, J., dissenting). 73. Plessy , 163 U.S. at 552. 74. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 100 (1945). 75. Id. In its original ......
-
Employment Discrimination Law-Overview & History
...by public entities because, it thought, Congress had no authority to limit exclusively private conduct. See The Civil Rights Cases , 109 U.S. 3 (1883). It was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court applied Section 1981 to wholly private acts of discrimination. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 3......
-
A Thirteenth Amendment defense of the Violence Against Women Act.
...Privacy, 105 Yale L.J. 2117 (1996) (discussing the evolution of the legal treatment of marital violence). (10) See The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 13 (1883) ("[T]he prohibitions of the [14th A]mendment are against state laws and acts done under state (11) See, eg., Siegel, supra note 9,......
-
RACE-BASED REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL LAW.
...and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation." 163 U.S. 537, 551 (1896). (224.) 109 U.S. 3, 25 (225.) See, e.g., Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 643 (1993). (226.) See id. ("Classifications of citizens solely on the basis of race 'are by the......