United States v. Guest - Significance, Intent To Interfere, The Right To Travel, Impact, Related Cases, Burden Of Proof

court rights petitioner respondent

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Herbert Guest, et al.

Petitioner's Claim

That the respondent conspired to deprive black citizens of their rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Solicitor General

Chief Lawyers for Respondent

James E. Hudson, Charles J. Bloch

Justices for the Court

Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, Abe Fortas, Potter Stewart (writing for the Court), Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, Earl Warren

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

28 March 1966

Decision

Reversed the judgment of the district court and held that the allegation of state involvement in conspiracy was sufficient to charge a violation of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The allegation of false arrest of black citizens was broad enough to cover a charge of active connivance by state agents, constituting a denial of rights protected by the Equal Protection Clause. Thus the district court should not have dismissed that part of the indictment.

Sources

West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1998.

United States v. Guest - Significance

The Supreme Court clarified when the federal law against conspiracy can be used in a case involving interference in the right to travel freely between states. The purpose of the conspiracy must be to impede or prevent interstate travel or to oppress a person exercising that right. Then, whether or not racial discrimination is the motivation, the conspiracy falls under the federal conspiracy law. L…

United States v. Guest - Intent To Interfere

The United States appealed directly to the Supreme Court under the Criminal Appeals Act. The Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of interference with the right to use public accommodations because of a defect in pleading. Regarding the district court's claim of "indefiniteness," Justice Stewart noted in his opinion that "inclusion of Fourteenth Amendment rights within…

United States v. Guest - Impact

United States v. Guest has been cited in many cases dealing with the right of interstate travel. It has been used to show that the constitutional right of interstate travel is a fundamental right. In a 1993 case, Jayne Bray, et al., Petitioners v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic et al., involving a woman's right to travel interstate to reach an abortion clinic, the opinion cited United States v. …

United States v. Guest - Burden Of Proof

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to prove an asserted fact. Two concepts embody the burden of proof: the burden of persuasion and the burden of going forward. The latter is also called production burden or burden of evidence. The burden of persuasion requires the plaintiff or prosecutor to convince the jury, or the judge in non-jury trials, of all the pertinent facts in the case. The degree …

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.