Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Gibson v. Mississippi

Supreme Court of the United States · 1896 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionRemoval JurisdictionEx Post Factosection 641removalequal civil rightsequal protection

Facts

Gibson was indicted for murder in Mississippi and petitioned to remove the prosecution to federal court before trial. He alleged that although many qualified Black citizens lived in Washington County, none had been summoned for grand-jury service for years and that officials purposely excluded Black citizens from juries because of race; he also alleged racial prejudice would prevent a fair trial. He further contended that the grand jury had been organized under Mississippi's 1892 Code rather than the 1880 Code in force when the alleged homicide occurred. Mississippi's constitution and statutes, however, did not on their face prescribe different criminal procedures by race, and Gibson did not move to quash the indictment in state court on the ground of purposeful exclusion from the grand jury that indicted him.

Issue

Was Gibson entitled to remove his state criminal prosecution to federal court under Revised Statutes section 641 based on alleged racial exclusion of Black citizens from jury service and local racial prejudice, where Mississippi's constitution and laws were facially nondiscriminatory? Also, did use of the 1892 Mississippi jury-selection procedures for an offense committed earlier make the prosecution ex post facto?

Rule

Section 641 authorizes pretrial removal of a state criminal prosecution only when the defendant is denied or cannot enforce equal civil rights because of the state's constitution, laws, or their authoritative construction, not because of anticipated discriminatory conduct by subordinate officers, possible trial error, or local prejudice. A statute is not ex post facto merely because it changes modes of procedure; it is ex post facto only if it makes previously innocent conduct criminal, aggravates a prior crime, increases punishment, or alters the legal rules of evidence to secure conviction.

🔒

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 Savannah, Georgia, Malik Turner is indicted for robbery in state court. Before trial, he files a verified petition to remove the prosecution to federal court, alleging that county jury commissioners have long excluded Black citizens from grand-jury service, even though Georgia statutes require race-neutral jury selection.

Should the federal court permit removal before trial?

Explanation. Section 641 permits pretrial removal only when the denial or inability to enforce equal civil rights arises primarily from the state constitution, statutes, or their authoritative construction. Alleged unlawful discrimination by local jury officials, standing alone, does not satisfy that standard. The proper course is to raise the issue in state court and, if federal rights are denied, seek appellate review.