CIVIL RIGHTS CASES : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in Civil Rights Cases (1833) held that Civil Rights Act, 1875 providing for equal treatment to citizens, irrespective of race and color, in public accommodation, public transportation and jury service was unconstitutional.
FACTS OF THE CASE
After Civil War several reconstruction measures were taken in the United States including several amendments to the Constitution. Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude. Fourteenth Amendment granted Citizenship Rights and equal protection of laws for all persons. Fifteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination in voting rights on the basis of race, color or previous conditions of Servitude.
To give effect to these amendments, Congress passed Civil Rights Act, 1875 for protection of civil and legal rights of all citizens. It provided for equal treatment of citizens in public accommodation, public transportation and jury service irrespective of race and color.
Five different cases involving provisions of Civil Rights Act, 1875 reached to the Supreme Court. All these acts were consolidated and heard together. In two of the cases Stanley and Nichols were denied accommodation in hotel. In other two cases Ryan and Singleton were denied accommodation in theatre. The case of Robinson was that his wife was denied access to ladies’ car.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue before the Court was whether Civil Rights Act, 1875 was constitutional.
The Court noted that purpose of Civil Rights Act, 1875 was that in the enjoyment of the accommodations and privileges of inns, public conveyances, theaters, and other places of public amusement, no distinction will be made between citizens of different race or color or between those who have and those who have not been slaves. Further, the Act made any such discrimination punishable.
The Supreme Court deliberated whether Civil Rights Act, 1875 is permissible under 14th Amendment or 13th Amendment.
The Supreme Court observed that 14th Amendment prohibits actions of States and not of an individual. Individual rights are not subject of 14th Amendment. Further 14th Amendment only confers power of make laws for prohibition of State laws infringing 14th Amendment but does not grant power on the Congress to enact municipal laws for regulation of private rights. Congress cannot enact primary and direct legislation but only can pass corrective legislation under 14th Amendment.
As far as 13th Amendment is concerned the Supreme Court observed that Congress can enact direct and primary legislation for giving effect to abolition of slavery as 13th Amendment is declaratory and not prohibitory as is the case with 14th amendment. But mere denial of a person to an inn, a public conveyance, or a theatre, even though based on race or color, will not tantamount to slavery as such Civil Rights Act, 1875 will not be covered under 13th Amendment.
The Supreme Court declared Section 1 and 2 of Civil Rights Act, 1875 unconstitutional and void.
DISSENTING OPINION
Justice Harlan gave a dissenting opinion. Justice Harlan observed that substance and spirit of recent amendment has been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism. It is not words of law but internal sense of it that makes the law, the letter of law is body, the sense and reason of law is soul. Court had departed from rule of interpretation of constitutional provision that full effect be given to the intent with which they were adopted.
Justice Harlan observed that the power of Congress under the 13th Amendment is not restricted to the legislation against slavery as an institution but may be exerted to the extent, at least, of protecting the liberated race against discrimination in respect of legal rights belonging to freeman where such discrimination is based on race. Public conveyance, inn or place of amusement exercises pubic functions and Congress is competent to pass any legislation to prevent any discrimination at these places on the basis of race or color.
IMPACT OF THE CASE
This judgment gave a blow to civil right initiatives by Congress as it restricted the power of the Congress from enacting laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and color. At the same time it encouraged States to pass laws known as “Jim Crow laws” which were discriminatory on the basis of race and color.
_______________________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.