The Civil Rights Cases
Case Overview
CITATION
ARGUED ON
DECIDED ON
OVERRULED BY
109 U.S. 3
Mar. 29, 1883
Oct. 15, 1883
DECIDED BY
Legal Issue
Do the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments give Congress the power to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which protected black Americans from private acts of discrimination?
Holding
No, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments do not give Congress the power to protect black Americans from discriminatory acts of private individuals.
An illustration of voting during the Reconstruction Era | Credit: Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
Background
On March 1, 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 into law, entitling everyone equal access to accommodation, public transport, and theaters regardless of their race or color. The law intended to enforce the language of the Fourteenth Amendment and, in part, read as follows:
“That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.”
While privately owned, the businesses impacted by the law acted as public utilities and functioned for the benefit of the public, thus subjecting them to regulation. In five separate cases, black plaintiffs sued private businesses for refusing to serve them on the basis of their race. These cases were consolidated for a single judgment from the U.S. Supreme Court.
8 - 1 decision
Majority
Dissent
Waite
Bradley
Field
Woods
Matthews
Blatchford
Gray
Harlan
Miller
-
Writing for the Court, Justice Joseph Bradley held that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional, as it exceeded the powers granted to Congress by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Bradley argued that the Fourteenth Amendment is prohibitory only upon the states and not on private individuals. It gives Congress the power to enforce its provisions against state actions that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens or deny equal protection of the laws, but it does not provide Congress the authority to legislate directly on individual conduct unless it involves state action. He explained, “[i]ndividual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. 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.”
Bradley further elaborated that the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, only grants Congress the power to legislate on the abolition of slavery and its incidents. He reasoned that while the amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, it did not cover the denial of equal accommodations in public places. He stated that, “[t]he denial of equal accommodations in inns, public conveyances, and places of amusement... imposes no badge of slavery or involuntary servitude upon the party.” Bradley ultimately concluded that while states could not pass laws that denied individuals equal protection of the laws, Congress could not regulate private acts of discrimination unless there was state involvement.
-
In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan criticized the majority opinion for adopting a narrow interpretation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, which undermined the intention behind these constitutional changes, and instead argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which sought to prevent racial discrimination in public accommodations such as inns, theaters, and public conveyances, was within Congress’ power to enforce the rights guaranteed by these amendments.
Harlan believed that the majority erred in its understanding of the scope and purpose of the Thirteenth Amendment, asserting that “[i]t was assumed that the power vested in Congress to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation clothes Congress with power to pass all laws necessary and proper for abolishing all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States.” In his view, the denial of equal access to public accommodations based on race was a badge of slavery, which Congress had the authority to abolish.
Harlan also addressed the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasizing its role in protecting the civil rights of all citizens against discriminatory state action. He maintained that this amendment empowered Congress to enact laws that would ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens, regardless of race. Harlan criticized the majority for limiting the amendment’s reach to state action only and argued that Congress could address private discriminatory actions if they amounted to the kind of harm the amendment sought to prevent. He explained, “[i]t is not the words of the law but the internal sense of it that makes the law: the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul.”
Furthermore, Harlan expressed concern that the majority’s decision would effectively render the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments meaningless in protecting the rights of black Americans. He noted that by invalidating the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Court was stripping Congress of the power to enforce civil rights protections and leaving individuals vulnerable to racial discrimination without adequate legal recourse. He warned, “[i]f the nation has not the power to correct wrongs by legislation, when their correction is essential to the security of rights inhering in the freedom established by the supreme law of the land, it is in vain to expect such legislation from the States.” Harlan ultimately concluded that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments granted Congress the authority to enact legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to protect individuals from racial discrimination in public accommodations, believing that the majority’s decision undermined the spirit of these amendments and failed to uphold the constitutional promise of equality and freedom for all citizens.