Vietnamese Fishermen's Ass'n v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
518 F.Supp. 993, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13344 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Private, racially motivated conspiracies of threats and intimidation designed to drive a minority group out of a commercial enterprise violate federal civil rights laws, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(c), as well as federal antitrust law under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Facts:
- In January 1981, American fisherman Eugene Fisher met with Louis Beam, the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in Texas, to secure the KKK's support in a dispute with Vietnamese fishermen over fishing in Galveston Bay.
- On February 14, 1981, the KKK held a rally on property owned by Joseph Collins, where Beam threatened to "take laws into our own hands" if Vietnamese fishermen were not gone in 90 days. At the rally, a boat was burned and a cross was burned.
- On March 15, 1981, KKK members, some robed and hooded, participated in a "boat ride" on a shrimp boat owned by Joseph Collins. The participants were visibly armed, fired a small cannon, and hung a figure in effigy to intimidate the Vietnamese community.
- Fisher threatened a dock owner who did business with Vietnamese fishermen, telling him to "watch your boats — they’re easy to burn."
- A woman who allowed a Vietnamese fisherman to use her dock received a KKK card stating, "You have been paid a ‘friendly visit’ do you want the next one to be a ‘real one’", followed by threatening phone calls.
- Louis Beam operated paramilitary training camps, referred to as the "Texas Emergency Reserve," instructing individuals in military combat tactics.
- During this period, three shrimp boats owned or operated by Vietnamese fishermen were destroyed by arson, although the perpetrators were not identified.
- Members of the Vietnamese fishing community and their families testified that the KKK's actions, particularly the armed boat patrol, made them fearful for their lives and safety.
Procedural Posture:
- An organization of Vietnamese fishermen and individual fishermen sued the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and a group of American fishermen in the U.S. District Court on April 16, 1981.
- The plaintiffs alleged violations of federal civil rights statutes, the Sherman Act, RICO, and state common law, requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction.
- On May 8, 1981, the court certified a plaintiff class of 'all Vietnamese fishermen in the Galveston Bay, Texas area' by agreement of the parties.
- The defendants' Motion to Dismiss was denied by the court on May 11, 1981.
- The court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction from May 11-14, 1981.
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 a campaign of racially motivated threats and intimidation by private citizens against a minority group of commercial fishermen establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for claims under federal civil rights and antitrust laws, thereby justifying a preliminary injunction?
Opinions:
Majority - McDonald, District Judge
Yes. A campaign of racially motivated threats and intimidation establishes a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of civil rights and antitrust claims, warranting a preliminary injunction. The defendants' uncontroverted provocative statements and overt acts of intimidation were intended to interfere with the rights of the Vietnamese fishermen. The court found a substantial likelihood of success on claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) because the defendants conspired with a class-based animus to deprive the plaintiffs of equal protection. Success was also likely under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as the defendants' actions interfered with the plaintiffs' right to make and enforce contracts essential to their commercial fishing business. Furthermore, the defendants' collaborative action to eliminate a class of competitors constituted a likely violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court was unpersuaded by the defendants' 'last minute change of heart,' finding that the threat of irreparable injury was substantial, the balance of harms favored the plaintiffs, and the public interest would be served by enjoining tactics of violence and intimidation.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its application of federal civil rights and antitrust statutes to combat racially motivated economic intimidation by private actors. The decision affirms that statutes like § 1981 and the Sherman Act are powerful tools to protect minority groups from conspiracies aimed at driving them from a market, even without state action. It establishes that organized campaigns of fear and threats are not protected speech but are instead illegal acts that can be enjoined by a court. The court's skepticism towards the defendants' late-trial repentance reinforces the principle that injunctive relief is appropriate when there is a history of unlawful conduct and a risk of recurrence.
