Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
United States v. Cruikshank
 | |
| United States v. Cruikshank | |
| Reference: 92 U.S. 542 | |
| Term: 1879 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: March 30 through June 24, 1875 Decided: March 27, 1876 | |
| Majority | |
| Stephen Johnson Field • Samuel Freeman Miller • Noah Haynes Swayne • William Strong • Morrison Waite | |
| Dissenting | |
| Joseph Bradley • Nathan Clifford • David Davis • Ward Hunt | |
United States v. Cruikshank was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 27, 1876, that held the Bill of Rights did not provide protections against the state governments. United States v. Cruikshank was later overturned by De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).
Why it matters: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights into the states and that the Federal government could not prosecute individuals who abridged the rights of other citizens protected by the Bill of Rights.
Background
A Democratic militia on April 13, 1873, attacked a group of Republican freedmen who had gathered at the Grant Parish courthouse in Colfax, Louisiana. A fight resulted and estimates were that more than one hundred Republican freedmen were killed. Some members of the Democratic militia were indicted and charged under the Enforcement Act of 1870, which allowed the federal government to enforce and prosecute in cases where groups attempted to abridge the right to vote in the South during Reconstruction. Members of the militia were indicted and charged with sixteen crimes, including violating the freedmen's right to lawfully vote and assemble.[1]
Oral argument
Oral argument was held from March 30 through June 24, 1875. The case was decided on March 27, 1876.[2]
Decision
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the protections of the Bill of Rights into the states and that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to prosecute individuals who attempt to impair the right to vote of citizens within the states.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Stephen Johnson Field, Samuel Freeman Miller, Noah Haynes Swayne, and William Strong.[2]
Justice Nathan Clifford wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Joseph Bradley, David Davis, and Ward Hunt.[2]
Opinion
Majority opinion
Justice Morrison Waite delivered the majority opinion of the Supreme Court and held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights into the states.
Justice Waite argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights into the states. Justice Waite reasoned that U.S. Attorney General Amos T. Akerman (R) could not prosecute Cruishank or any of his co-conspirators and argued that the federal government does not have the power to prosecute individuals for violating the rights of others because the Bill of Rights was not incorporated into the states. He argued that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from depriving citizens of life, liberty, and property but did not allow the federal government to protect citizens from other citizens within the states:[3]
| “ | The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. . . . These counts in the indictment do not call for the exercise of any of the powers conferred by this provision in the amendment. | ” |
Federalism
- See also: Federalism
Justice Waite argued that the federal government could not conduct prosecutions against individuals in the South who violated the individual rights of other citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Justice Waite concluded that the federal government could not prosecute individuals in those cases because the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights into the states. Furthermore, Justice Waite argued that the federal government and state governments were separate and sovereign within their respective spheres:
| “ | We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. | ” |
Incorporation
- See also: Incorporation
Justice Waite ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights into the states. He argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not grant additional rights that created equality between citizens. He further argued that the Fourteenth Amendment acted as an additional guarantee against encroachments of the states upon individual rights, that the amendment did not change the duty of states to protect citizens, and that the amendment aimed to ensure that the states did not abridge the natural rights of citizens:
| “ | The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, but it adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guarantee against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society. The duty of protecting all its citizens in the enjoyment of an equality of rights was originally assumed by the States, and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the Amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the National Government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty. | ” |
Dissenting opinion
Justice Nathan Clifford wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Joseph Bradley, David Davis, and Ward Hunt. Justice Clifford agreed with the majority that the indictments should be rescinded but argued that the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government power to protect individual rights from those who restrict the rights of others. He argued that the indictments were too vague to allow the defendants to defend themselves in court effectively.[2]
Aftermath
Ten of the eleven former Confederate states passed amendments or changed their constitutions between 1890 and 1908 to make voting more difficult for freedmen. Some states added poll taxes, residency requirements, and literacy tests as qualifications for the right to vote. Historian Leonard Levy wrote, "Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt to protect black citizens by punishing violators of their Civil Rights and, in effect, shaped the Constitution to the advantage of the Ku Klux Klan."[5]
United States v. Cruikshank was later overturned by De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). In both De Jonge and McDonald, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights into the states.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ LeeAnna Keith, The Colfax Massacre, accessed September 19,2022
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Cornell Law, Cruikshank v. United States, accessed September 16, 2022
- ↑ Teaching American History, United States v. Cruishank
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ WorldCat, Encyclopdia of the American Constitution, accessed November 14, 2022
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Category:Federalism court cases
Category:Noteworthy cases, federal cases
Category:Noteworthy cases, upholding congressional acts and delegations of authority
Category:United States Supreme Court
Category:Historic SCOTUS cases
Category:Decided_SCOTUS_cases
