This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
The Civil Rights Cases: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(→See also: Shelley v. Kraemer) |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=Yes " to "") |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court= | |court=Supreme Court of the United States | ||
|citation=109 U.S. 3 (1883) | |citation=109 U.S. 3 (1883) | ||
|date=1883 | |date=October 15, 1883 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
| | |related=Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | ||
|facts=The Civil Rights Cases of 1883 were 5 consolidated cases. | |||
The [https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/civil-rights-act-of-1875-march-1-1875-an-act-to-protect-all-citizens-in-their-civil-and-legal-rights Civil Rights Act of 1875] made it unlawful for anyone to deny a person the enjoyment of accommodations at inns, on public transportation, etc., on the basis of race. Certain blacks were excluded from inns, theaters, and a railroad in 5 separate states. The 5 cases were consolidated before the Supreme Court. | |||
|procedural_history='''''United States v. Stanley''''' is 1 of the 5 Civil Rights cases of 1883. [https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/818 Stanley in the state of Kansas] was refusing admittance to African-American patrons at his hotel. A federal prosecutor charged Stanley for criminal violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. | |||
|issues=May Congress prohibit <span style="background:yellow">private discriminatory actions</span> by facilities generally open to the public? | |||
|arguments=Stanley argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was un-constitutional. | |||
|holding=No. The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional | |||
The [[14th Amendment]] permits Congress only to take corrective action against state laws or acts done under state authority. The Civil Rights Act is directed toward acts by individuals and cannot be upheld under the 14th Amendment. | |||
The [[13th Amendment]] permits direct (as opposed to merely corrective) legislation, but it covers only slavery or involuntary servitude, or the "lingering badges" of such. Refusing <span style="background:blue">public accommodations</span> to a black person does not impose any badge of slavery or servitude. Mere racial discrimination is not a badge of slavery. | |||
Congress had no power to pass the Civil Rights Act, and Plaintiffs must seek a remedy in state law for any cause of action against private individuals or corporations that are discriminating. | |||
|reasons=According to SCOTUS, private racial discrimination didn't make people slaves. There were in fact free non-white people in the South before 1860 who faced racial discrimination by private parties such as restaurant owners. These free non-whites folks weren't being enslaved as a result of private racial discrimination in public accommodations. | |||
'' | This aforesaid SCOTUS outlook has changed in 1968 case ''[[Jones v. Alfred Mayer]]''. | ||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/17/Civil-Rights-Cases | |||
* | |case_text_source=C-SPAN video discussion | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/the-civil-rights-cases-united-states-v-stanley | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
* | |||
'''Dissent''': (Harlan): The Court has ignored the substance and spirit of these amendments. Freedom includes immunity from and protection against racial discrimination, esp. in the use of public albeit privately owned, accommodations and facilities licensed by the state. | '''Dissent''': (Harlan): The Court has ignored the substance and spirit of these amendments. Freedom includes immunity from and protection against racial discrimination, esp. in the use of public albeit privately owned, accommodations and facilities licensed by the state. | ||
| Line 20: | Line 37: | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.]] | *''[[Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.]]'' | ||
*''[[Shelley v. Kraemer]]'' (1948), private discrimination by homeowners in the form of housing covenant isn't allowed. | *''[[Shelley v. Kraemer]]'' (1948), private discrimination by homeowners in the form of housing covenant isn't allowed. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:35, July 14, 2023
| The Civil Rights Cases | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | 109 U.S. 3 (1883) |
| Date decided | October 15, 1883 |
| Related | Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States |
| Overturned by | |
| Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. | |
Facts
The Civil Rights Cases of 1883 were 5 consolidated cases.
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 made it unlawful for anyone to deny a person the enjoyment of accommodations at inns, on public transportation, etc., on the basis of race. Certain blacks were excluded from inns, theaters, and a railroad in 5 separate states. The 5 cases were consolidated before the Supreme Court.Procedural History
United States v. Stanley is 1 of the 5 Civil Rights cases of 1883. Stanley in the state of Kansas was refusing admittance to African-American patrons at his hotel. A federal prosecutor charged Stanley for criminal violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
Issues
May Congress prohibit private discriminatory actions by facilities generally open to the public?
Arguments
Stanley argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was un-constitutional.
Holding
No. The Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional
The 14th Amendment permits Congress only to take corrective action against state laws or acts done under state authority. The Civil Rights Act is directed toward acts by individuals and cannot be upheld under the 14th Amendment.
The 13th Amendment permits direct (as opposed to merely corrective) legislation, but it covers only slavery or involuntary servitude, or the "lingering badges" of such. Refusing public accommodations to a black person does not impose any badge of slavery or servitude. Mere racial discrimination is not a badge of slavery.
Congress had no power to pass the Civil Rights Act, and Plaintiffs must seek a remedy in state law for any cause of action against private individuals or corporations that are discriminating.Reasons
According to SCOTUS, private racial discrimination didn't make people slaves. There were in fact free non-white people in the South before 1860 who faced racial discrimination by private parties such as restaurant owners. These free non-whites folks weren't being enslaved as a result of private racial discrimination in public accommodations.
This aforesaid SCOTUS outlook has changed in 1968 case Jones v. Alfred Mayer.Case Text Links
Dissent: (Harlan): The Court has ignored the substance and spirit of these amendments. Freedom includes immunity from and protection against racial discrimination, esp. in the use of public albeit privately owned, accommodations and facilities licensed by the state.
Note: They would have had a remedy under state law for inns and carriers of any person. Individuals could discriminate freely.
See also
- Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
- Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), private discrimination by homeowners in the form of housing covenant isn't allowed.
External Links
- Full text on Justia.com
