United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, protects individual rights from infringement by the government, not from infringement by other private citizens. The duty to protect citizens from crimes committed by other private individuals rests with the states, unless the crime interferes with a right specifically granted or secured by the U.S. Constitution against private interference.
Facts:
- A group of white individuals, including the defendants, banded and conspired together in Louisiana.
- The targets of the conspiracy were two Black citizens, Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman.
- The purpose of the conspiracy was to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Nelson and Tillman.
- The specific intent was to prevent Nelson and Tillman from exercising their right to peaceably assemble and their right to bear arms for a lawful purpose.
- The conspiracy also aimed to deprive them of their lives and liberty without due process of law.
- A further intent of the conspiracy was to prevent Nelson and Tillman from enjoying the equal protection of the laws of Louisiana and the United States, as enjoyed by white citizens.
- The conspirators also intended to prevent them from exercising their right to vote in future elections.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government indicted numerous defendants, including William Cruikshank, in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana on sixteen counts under the Enforcement Act of 1870.
- Following a jury trial, a verdict of guilty was returned on the sixteen counts.
- The defendants filed a motion in arrest of judgment, challenging the legal sufficiency of the indictment.
- The two judges of the Circuit Court were divided in their opinion on whether to grant the motion.
- The Circuit Court certified the question of the indictment's sufficiency to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Enforcement Act of 1870, under the authority of the U.S. Constitution, permit the federal government to prosecute private citizens for conspiring to deprive other citizens of fundamental rights, such as peaceable assembly and bearing arms, that are not specifically granted or secured by the Constitution against private infringement?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Waite
No. The Enforcement Act of 1870 cannot authorize federal prosecution for private conspiracies against fundamental rights because the duty to protect citizens from such private infringement rests with the states. The U.S. Constitution established a government of limited and enumerated powers that primarily secures rights against government action, not the actions of private individuals. The First Amendment right to assemble is a restriction on Congress, not private actors, and the right itself pre-dates the Constitution; therefore, its protection from private interference is a state police power. Similarly, the Second Amendment right to bear arms restricts only the national government. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are prohibitions on state action ('No State shall...'), and do not provide Congress with the power to legislate against private criminal conduct. For the federal government to have jurisdiction, the indictment must allege a conspiracy to interfere with a right specifically granted or secured by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to petition the federal government or to vote in federal elections free from racial discrimination, which these counts failed to do.
Concurring - Justice Clifford
No. While concurring in the judgment to arrest the conviction, the reasoning rests on the technical insufficiency of the indictment rather than broad constitutional principles. The indictment's counts are too vague and general to be legally sufficient. Under the Sixth Amendment, an accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation with clearness and certainty. The counts here fail this standard by not specifying the particular rights that were allegedly infringed upon, instead using broad language like 'all and singular the several rights and privileges.' An indictment for a statutory offense must descend to particulars and clearly allege every ingredient of the crime, which these counts fail to do, making them fatally defective.
Analysis:
United States v. Cruikshank severely curtailed the federal government's power to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments and protect the civil rights of African Americans. By establishing a strict 'state action' doctrine for the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court ruled that Congress could not punish the actions of private individuals, thereby gutting the Enforcement Acts designed to combat violence by groups like the Ku Klux Klan. This decision effectively left the protection of Black citizens in the hands of unsympathetic state governments, contributing to the end of Reconstruction and the rise of the Jim Crow era. The ruling narrowed the scope of federally protected rights and created a significant barrier to federal civil rights legislation for nearly a century.
