Griffin v. Breckenridge

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Torts

TortsCivil RightsFederal CourtsConspiracy42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)private conspiracyracial animusequal protection

Facts

Petitioners, Negro citizens residing in Kemper County, Mississippi, were passengers in a car driven by R. G. Grady of Memphis, Tennessee, while traveling on highways in and around DeKalb, Mississippi. They alleged that respondents, two white men, acting under the mistaken belief that Grady was a worker for Negro civil rights, conspired to block their passage, force them from the car, detain them at gunpoint, and beat them with clubs. The complaint alleged that respondents acted to prevent petitioners and other Negro-Americans from enjoying equal legal rights, including movement and travel on public highways on the same terms as white citizens. Petitioners alleged physical injuries, terror, and deprivation of liberty from acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Issue

Does 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) apply to wholly private conspiracies, or does it require state action? If it applies to private conduct, does the complaint here state a claim and is the statute constitutional as applied to these allegations?

Rule

Section 1985(3) is not limited to conspiracies under color of state law; it reaches private conspiracies. To state a claim under the portion of § 1985(3) at issue, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a conspiracy or going in disguise on the highway or on another's premises; (2) a purpose of depriving, directly or indirectly, a person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities under the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) resulting injury to person or property, or deprivation of exercising a right or privilege of a United States citizen. The statute requires some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators' action.

🔒

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 Birmingham, Alabama, Owen Pike and Trent Morrow privately agree to stop Devin Cole, a Black motorist, from driving to Nashville for a family event. Believing Devin is "one of those Black activists," they force his car onto the shoulder, threaten him with a tire iron, and fracture his wrist when he tries to leave.

If Devin sues Owen and Trent under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), which is the strongest argument that his complaint states a claim?

Explanation. The majority held that § 1985(3) is not limited to state action and may reach purely private conspiracies. A complaint states a claim when it alleges a conspiracy, a purpose to deprive equal protection or equal privileges and immunities, an act in furtherance, and resulting injury or deprivation of a federal right, with racial or perhaps otherwise class-based invidiously discriminatory animus. Devin's allegations fit that framework.