Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Ex parte Virginia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1879 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFourteenth AmendmentCongressional enforcement powerEqual protectionJury discriminationHabeas corpusstate actionequal protection

Facts

J. D. Coles was a judge of the county court of Pittsylvania County, Virginia, and was charged by state law with selecting jurors for the county's circuit and county courts in 1878. A federal indictment alleged that he excluded certain qualified citizens of African race and black color from the jury lists solely because of their race, color, and previous condition of servitude. He was arrested on a bench warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia and held in custody. Coles and Virginia argued that the indictment charged no punishable federal offense because Congress lacked constitutional authority to criminalize his conduct.

Issue

Does the Supreme Court have authority on habeas corpus and certiorari to examine whether the federal district court had jurisdiction to hold the petitioner, and if so, is § 4 of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 constitutional as applied to a state officer who excludes Black citizens from jury service on account of race?

Rule

The Supreme Court may, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, issue habeas corpus and certiorari to determine whether an inferior federal court is holding a prisoner under an order made without lawful authority. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may enact appropriate legislation punishing any state officer or other person charged with jury selection who excludes otherwise qualified citizens from jury service on account of race, because such discriminatory action by a state officer is state action denying equal protection of the laws.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Ohio law assigns county jury-list preparation to the elected clerk of the Lakeview County Court in Columbus. Priya Desai, the clerk, intentionally omits all otherwise qualified Black residents from the jury pool because she believes all-white juries are more reliable. Congress has enacted a statute making it a federal misdemeanor for any officer charged with jury selection to exclude qualified citizens on account of race.

If Desai is federally indicted and argues Congress lacks power to criminalize her conduct because the Fourteenth Amendment regulates only States, not individuals, which is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority held that when a person, by virtue of public position under state government and clothed with state power, denies equal protection, that conduct is state action. Congress's Section 5 power reaches appropriate legislation acting on the responsible persons, including criminal punishment of state officers charged with jury selection who exclude qualified citizens because of race.