Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Hall

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Alabama
26 F. Cas. 79, 3 Chi. Leg. News 260 (1871)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities and Equal Protection Clauses, enforced through Section 5, grant Congress the authority to pass legislation that directly punishes private conspiracies aimed at depriving citizens of fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and assembly, particularly when a state fails to provide such protection.


Facts:

  • A group of individuals, the defendants, banded together and formed a conspiracy.
  • The conspiracy's intent was to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Charles Hays and several other U.S. citizens.
  • The specific purpose of this intimidation was to prevent and hinder Hays and the others from exercising their right of freedom of speech.
  • The defendants also conspired with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate William Miller and other U.S. citizens.
  • The purpose of the conspiracy against Miller and the others was to prevent and hinder their free exercise of the right to peaceably assemble.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States brought a two-count indictment against the defendants in a U.S. Circuit Court.
  • The indictment charged the defendants with violating the 6th section of the Enforcement Act of 1870 by conspiring to deprive citizens of their rights to free speech and assembly.
  • The defendants filed a demurrer to the indictment, arguing that the alleged acts do not constitute a violation of any right secured by the U.S. Constitution or federal law.
  • The case is before the U.S. Circuit Court for a ruling on the defendants' demurrer.

Locked

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 Congress have the constitutional authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to enact legislation punishing private conspiracies that interfere with citizens' fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble?


Opinions:

Majority - Woods, Circuit Judge.

Yes. Congress has the authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the fundamental rights of U.S. citizens from interference by private individuals. The court reasoned that while the original Bill of Rights only restricted Congress, the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally altered the relationship between the federal government, states, and citizens. It established national citizenship and protected the 'privileges and immunities' of U.S. citizens, which include fundamental rights like free speech and assembly, from state abridgment. The court interpreted the Equal Protection Clause's prohibition on states 'denying' protection to include state inaction or omission. Therefore, if a state fails to protect its citizens' fundamental rights, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress to enact 'appropriate legislation,' such as the Enforcement Act of 1870, to provide that protection directly by punishing private offenders.



Analysis:

This decision represents an early, expansive interpretation of Congress's enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment. By introducing the 'state inaction' doctrine, the court opened the door for direct federal intervention to punish private civil rights violations, a power traditionally reserved for the states. This broad view of federal authority to protect privileges and immunities against private actors would later be significantly narrowed by the Supreme Court in cases like United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and the Civil Rights Cases (1883). The case is significant for showing the potential scope of the Reconstruction Amendments before subsequent decisions limited their application to state action.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Hall (1871)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"