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 overruled, with the first recognition of it no longer being good law being made only recently, 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

[Brett Bellmore]

"Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments apply only to governmental action, not private action "

Well, if you read the 14th amendment, it DOES say, "No State shall... nor shall any State...", so the Court wasn't wrong about that. Even if it got a great deal else about those amendments wrong.

[ducksalad]

Yes. I think even now, modern era federal civil rights laws are justified under the New Deal definition of the interstate commerce, not the 14th amendment. In 1883 no one thought running a local hotel was interstate commerce, it didn’t involve importing or exporting from a state, so the attempt to justify the federal law had to use something else, and it didn't fly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, but the New Deal redefinition of "interstate commerce" is just a sophistry designed to render everything after "to regulate" devoid of meaning, because FDR didn't want to be limited to the powers the federal government had actually been delegated.

Central economic planning was the in thing at the time, and if the Constitution didn't really permit it, so much the worse for the Constitution.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"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"

And third parties have been treated fairly ever since.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Third parties only serve the interests of the major party candidate they most oppose. These are not serious people.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

The “serious” major-party candidates are talking about price controls and eating cats, while ignoring the national debt.

I don't have to stay on their plantation, and I certainly won't take seriously the idea that the major parties are serious.

[apedad]

The Civil Rights Cases were effectively overturned with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which generally revived the ban on discrimination in public accommodations but under the Commerce Clause of Article I instead of the 14th Amendment. (wiki)

[Dan Schiavetta]

The opera case wouldn't involve interstate commerce unless you stretched it to the lengths required in Katzenbach v. McClung, 1964 (the smoked salmon served during intermission could have been fished from a lake in another state -- aha! gotcha!).

[Syd Henderson]

Or it's a traveling opera company. But I suspect that one involved the 14th Amendment.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Civil Rights Cases specifically noted that it was not deciding the Commerce Clause issue. The usage of alternative approaches to get to the same end occurs with some regularity.

The Civil Rights Cases has significant effect today, especially given modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

U.S. v. Morrison, for instance, involved a federal law (part of the Violence Against Women Act, a Senator Biden effort) providing a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence.

The Supreme Court (5-4) rejected a Commerce Clause justification. It was private conduct for which the 14th Amendment did not give Congress the power to enforce by appropriate legislation.

The Court reaffirmed the “enduring vitality of the Civil Rights Cases.” IMHO, this is a tad absurd. We honor Justice Harlan as a prophet regarding Plessy. His dissent in the Civil Rights Cases, according to an autobiography by his wife written using Taney’s ink well used to write Dred Scott, deserves similar respect.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, it's simply true as a textual matter: The 14th amendment simply does not apply to private conduct. It's not even a little vague on the matter, even if you don't like what it says.

[Bob from Ohio]

As Harlan wrote, states require "public accommodations" [hotels, trains] to let to all people so if the state does not enforce these laws/judicial decisions when blacks are involved, that is "state action" and 14A is violated.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, IF a state has a public accommodations law, and it doesn't enforce it where some group is concerned, that's an EPC violation.

But the state is not required to have a public accommodations law, and certainly not to have an absurdly extensive one that encompasses florists or wedding photographers.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You don’t need a public accommodations law. Any discriminatory practice, if taken to court and found to be valid, becomes “state action” and a 14A violation. Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948.

[David Nieporent]

Shelley was the high water mark for that notion, and it has not been — and wouldn't be — extended because taken to its inevitable conclusion it would convert virtually all private conduct into state action. If I don't want, e.g., Scientologists at my son's birthday party, but they show up anyway, can I call the police to have them kicked out for trespassing? Yes. My private decision to discriminate against Scientologists — which would be unconstitutional if the government did it — does not become state action merely because I called the police to enforce my decision.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Yes, there needs to be some dividing line to that principle.

Housing discrimination was later found to be covered by the 13th Amendment, for instance, in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer.

We can draw lines that avoid making the trespassing example necessary.

Some of the line drawings can be complicated and that underlines the value of giving Congress discretionary enforcement power. Stronger discretion IMHO than now given to them by current doctrine.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Civil Rights Cases was covered by one of the Landmark Cases episodes, an interesting C-SPAN series with the webpage for each providing additional information.

https://landmarkcases.c-span.org/Case/17/Civil-Rights-Cases

The Lochner and Bakke episodes had Randy Barnett as one of the guests. Roe v. Wade had Melissa Murray of Strict Scrutiny Podcast though it was aired before that podcast began.

(They often had a guest from opposite viewpoints.)