HomeCase briefs › Constitutional Law

United States v. Harris

Supreme Court of the United States · 1883 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawCongressional powerFourteenth AmendmentThirteenth AmendmentState actionenumerated powersnecessary and properstate action

Facts

The defendants were indicted under Revised Statutes section 5519 for conspiring to deprive certain citizens of the United States and of Tennessee of the equal protection accorded them by Tennessee law. The indictment, as described by the Court, contained no allegation that Tennessee had passed or enforced any law forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment, or that any state department had denied protected rights. The charge was directed solely at the conduct of private persons. The defendants demurred, challenging Congress's power to enact the statute on which the indictment rested.

Issue

Did Congress have constitutional authority to enact Revised Statutes section 5519, which punished private conspiracies to deprive persons of the equal protection of the laws? As a threshold matter, did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction despite the certificate not expressly stating that it was made on request of a party or counsel?

Rule

Federal legislation must be authorized by some express constitutional grant or by a power properly incident and necessary to execute an express grant. The Fourteenth Amendment restrains State action and authorizes Congress to enforce that restraint, but it does not authorize Congress to punish purely private conduct unconnected to state action. The Thirteenth Amendment authorizes legislation against slavery and involuntary servitude, but it does not support a statute whose terms extend far beyond that subject; courts may not save such a statute by limiting it to constitutionally reachable cases when Congress has legislated more broadly.

🔒

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Congress enacts the Public Equality Protection Act, making it a federal felony for any two private persons in Ohio to agree to stop a resident from using the same state-law remedies for trespass that other residents may use. Priya Desai and Nolan Pierce, both private citizens in Cleveland, are indicted after allegedly threatening a neighbor so she would drop a state-court claim, even though Ohio courts remained fully open to her on equal terms.

Is the statute constitutional as applied to Priya and Nolan?

Explanation. The majority rule is that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment reaches State action only. Congress may enforce the amendment when a State, through its laws or departments, abridges privileges or immunities, denies due process, or denies equal protection. A statute aimed directly at private persons, without regard to any state law or state administration denying rights, exceeds that power.