United States v. Harris - Significance, Congress Lacked Power To Pass Law, Impact, Related Cases, Further Readings

plaintiff samuel federal none

Plaintiff

United States

Defendant

R. G. Harris, et al.

Plaintiff's Claim

A federal civil rights statute making it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to deprive another person of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws is constitutional.

Chief Lawyer for Plaintiff

Samuel F. Phillips, U.S. Solicitor General

Chief Defense Lawyer

None

Justices for the Court

Samuel Blatchford, Joseph P. Bradley, Stephen Johnson Field, Horace Gray, John Marshall Harlan I, Stanley Matthews, Samuel Freeman Miller, Morrison Remick Waite, William Burnham Woods (writing for the Court)

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

22 January 1883

Decision

That the federal statute was unconstitutional. Therefore, the criminal indictment against the defendants was dismissed.

Additional Topics

United States v. Harris - Significance

The ruling invalidated a provision of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, that made it a crime for two or more persons to conspire to deprive another person of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws. The Supreme Court invalidated the provision because the U.S. Constitution did not authorize Congress to punish priva…

United States v. Harris - Congress Lacked Power To Pass Law

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision punishing private conspiracies was unconstitutional. The Court began by stating the rules applicable to its analysis. First, the Court had to presume that Congress had constitutional power to pass the statute unless the lack of constitutional authority was clearly demonstrated. Next, the Court stated, "every valid act of Congress …

United States v. Harris - Impact

The Court's ruling that Congress did not have the power under the Constitution to regulate private conduct came during the aftermath of the Civil War when re-establishing political harmony with Southern states was crucial. The decision reflected the federal government's concern that the Fourteenth Amendment not be used to centralize power so as to upset the federal system. This restrictive view of…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.

User Comments

over 5 years ago

The Link for Robert R. Smith is:
http://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/tn/crockett/census/census/1880/pg0279d.txt

The others: William J. Overton, George W. Wells, Jr., and P. M. Wells family members are listed and are definitely not among the "African American Records," but you have to order those sheets with payment.
http://www.tngenweb.org/haywood/index.html
http://www.rootsweb.com/~tncrocke/

almost 6 years ago

Although it has little bearing on the results of the case, there is an error of fact in the description above. In US v Harris, the four men who were taken from the jail and beaten (one killed) were white, not black. I don't know where this error came from, probably arose from the fact that this case invalidated parts of the Ku Klux Act.
If you would like to verify this, all four men are listed in the Crockett and/or Haywood Tennessee censuses of 1850 or 186o as white.