Today in Supreme Court History: October 15, 1883

10/15/1883: The Civil Rights Cases are decided.

The Grand Opera House in New York denied "another person, whose color is not stated, the full enjoyment of the accommodations."

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (decided October 15, 1883): strikes down federal statute prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations; Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments apply only to governmental action, not private action (here, refusal to allow black people to take rooms at an inn, seats at an opera, and to get onto "ladies' car" reserved for whites on train) (according to Westlaw, this case was never explicitly abrogated, with the first recognition of abrogation being made only four months ago, by a Maine court, in June 2022)

Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (decided October 15, 1968): strikes down on Equal Protection grounds Ohio statutes making it "nearly impossible" for third parties to get onto ballot

Frese v. Chicago, B. & Q. RR. Co., 263 U.S. 1 (decided October 15, 1923): widow of engineer could not sue under Federal Employers' Liability Act after train crash; though both engineers complied with statute requiring them to stop before an intersection, they were too far away and the immediate view was obstructed; no evidence of employer (i.e., employer's employee) negligence -- stoker was standing on other side of train where there was a better view but no evidence he was negligent in failing to warn of oncoming train because pure speculation that he was looking toward the intersection

[Vaclav Matthess]

"My brethren say, that when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen, or a man, are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men’s rights are protected. It is, I submit, scarcely just to say that the colored race has been the special favorite of the laws. The statute of 1875, now adjudged to be unconstitutional, is for the benefit of citizens of every race and color. What the nation, through congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is—what had already been done in every State of the Union for the white race—to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens; nothing more. . . ."
-Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

” There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race. ”

— John Marshall Harlan, bigot (but not as bigoted as many of his peers, not nearly)

Carry on, clingers.

[Syd Henderson]

Though he still voted in the majority in Yick Wo vs. Hopkins (which was a unanimous decision).

[Bob from Ohio]

Harlan was right, as usual. Arguably the greatest justice.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Greater than McReynolds??

[The Margrave of Azilia]

From the greatest justice:

"While, as already suggested, the rights of liberty and property guaranteed by the Constitution against deprivation without due process of law are subject to such reasonable restraints as the common good or the general welfare may require, it is not within the functions of government -- at least in the absence of contract between the parties -- to compel any person, in the course of his business and against his will, to accept or retain the personal services of another, or to compel any person, against his will, to perform personal services for another. The right of a person to sell his labor upon such terms as he deems proper is, in its essence, the same as the right of the purchaser of labor to prescribe the conditions upon which he will accept such labor from the person offering to sell it. So the right of the employee to quit the service of the employer, for whatever reason, is the same as the right of the employer, for whatever reason, to dispense with the services of such employee. It was the legal right of the defendant Adair -- however unwise such a course might have been -- to discharge Coppage because of his being a member of a labor organization, as it was the legal right of Coppage, if he saw fit to do so -- however unwise such a course on his part might have been -- to quit the service in which he was engaged because the defendant employed some persons who were not members of a labor organization."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/208/161/

[Brett Bellmore]

That's long been my position: That it's as much an offense, indeed fundamentally the same offense, to force somebody to employ someone, as it is to force somebody to be employed by someone.

Exchanges should be free on both sides, not just one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It looks like us globalist elitists and lefties have really been persecuting sovereign patriotic conservative Republican American Alex Jones lately.

Jones won't go to jail for his deplorable conduct with respect to the Sandy Hook victims. Instead, it appears, he will go to prison for fraudulent conveyances and bankruptcy crimes.

This should be an example to all delusional, disaffected, bigoted, half-educated right-wingers. Fuck with your betters at your peril, clingers. After a half-century on the winning side of the culture war and the right side of history, we control this society and the best you right-wing culture war casualties can hope for is leniency and mercy from your betters.

[Cheerio]

Jones is worthy of your hatred. Most conservatives aren't.

And of course, the woke left of today is no more reasonable and rational than the delusional/bigoted right-wingers. Neither of those "sides" will ultimately prevail.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don’t think the person you’re responding to is really into reasoned discourse.

[Voize]

Testing where no-one will notice.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Court was saying the 13A is not violated by private actors keeping black people away. Most of the analysis had to do with the 14A.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The magic of interstate commerce has dulled the pain of the Civil Rights decision.

[Brett Bellmore]

They're not wrong about it; The text of the 14th amendment scarcely permits any other conclusion; "No state shall... nor shall any state..."

The 13th amendment, being written in more general terms, textually does apply to private actions as well as governmental. But it is only violated by slavery and involuntary servitude: You must force someone to labor for you (Bake a cake, maybe, or take photographs.) to violate it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

True and well put

[Jazzizhep]

If by “magic” you mean illusion, sleight of hand, and misdirection, I agree.

[Dan Schiavetta]

If that is true, then it's odd that Jim Crow laws went uncontested. Those laws were not private conduct. And were upheld 13 years later in Plessy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nothing odd about it: The Court deliberately spiked reconstruction with a bad faith reading of the P&I clause.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Those laws were not private conduct. "

Agreed, hence banned under the equal protection clause of 14A, contra Plessy

13A bans one thing, slavery. No need to abuse the text when 14A exists.

[Bob from Ohio]

"badge or incident thereof"

Where is that in the text?

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Denial of seats at an opera is not slavery.

[Dan Schiavetta]

First you say “they’re not wrong about it”, then you say it was a bad faith reading.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's be clear: They're not wrong about the 14th amendment only applying to governmental actors. Or that the 13th only prohibits actual involuntary servitude and slavery, forcing somebody to work for you, and nothing else.

They were wrong about a lot of other things, and I think deliberately so, but not those particular things that I addressed in my comment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Greatest because you liked what he pulled out of his ass, you mean.

[CJColucci]

One of my crackpot theories is that the 13th Amendment emancipated not only slaves, but the Commerce Clause. I can't dig up the source now, but someone upset at the formation of the Bank of the United States wrote to Thomas Jefferson (or maybe John Randolph), if the federal government can charter a bank as a regulation of commerce, why can it not abolish slavery?
Why not indeed?
I would be willing to bet that much of the ante-bellum resistance to robust use of the Commerce Clause was based on the fear that it would empower the federal government to abolish, or otherwise regulate, slavery. Once the issue was mooted by the 13th Amendment, the way was clear for the modern view.