Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Ex parte Yarborough

Supreme Court of the United States · 1884 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawElectionsFederal PowerHabeas CorpusVoting Rightshabeas corpusjurisdictionfederal elections

Facts

Jasper Yarbrough and others were convicted in federal circuit court under Revised Statutes §§ 5508 and 5520 and sentenced to imprisonment. The indictments charged that they conspired by force to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Berry Saunders, a citizen of African descent, in the exercise of his right to vote for a member of Congress, and that they beat and maltreated him in carrying out the conspiracy. A second count charged that they went in disguise on the highway and on Saunders's premises with intent to prevent or hinder his exercise of that voting right. They sought release by habeas corpus on the ground that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the statutes.

Issue

Whether Congress had constitutional authority to criminalize conspiracies, intimidation, and violence aimed at preventing or punishing a citizen's voting for a member of Congress, so that the federal circuit court had jurisdiction to convict and sentence petitioners under those statutes. Also, whether alleged defects in the indictments could be reviewed on habeas corpus.

Rule

If a federal court has jurisdiction over the party and the offense, and has not exceeded its sentencing power, habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for writ of error to review ordinary legal mistakes, including alleged indictment defects. Congress may, by appropriate legislation, protect the election of members of Congress and the act of voting in such elections from violence, intimidation, corruption, and fraud, because those powers are implied in the Constitution and are supported by Congress's authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry federal powers into execution.

🔒

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.

In Columbus, Ohio, Congress enacts a statute making it a federal crime for any group to use force to stop a qualified voter from casting a ballot for the U.S. House of Representatives. On election day, Trent Miller and two friends shove Daniel Ruiz away from the polling place and threaten to break his arm if he votes in the congressional race.

Trent argues the statute is unconstitutional because the Constitution nowhere expressly gives Congress power to punish private violence against voters. What is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that Congress may enact appropriate legislation to secure the free, pure, and safe exercise of voting for members of Congress. That authority does not depend on an express clause naming voter intimidation; implied powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause permit Congress to protect the elections on which the national government depends. The power is not limited to protecting federal officers.