1871 Ku Klux Klan Act Applied in 2021
Civil Action Case
Charlottesville 2017 Rally Turned Riot
Susan M.
On August 12, 2017, protestors and counter protestors faced
off in a rally in Charlottesville, VA, over the city’s decision to remove the
statue of General Robert E. Lee from the city park. The rally/protest lasted
two days. Criminal charges were filed against individual actors, the most egregious
being a murder conviction. Following the exhaustion of the criminal charges, a
group of 9 plaintiffs brought civil action against 14 defendants and 10 far
right groups (many that have dissolved or reorganized under a different name)
purported to be the organizers of the rally. The plaintiffs allege violation of
their civil rights and are seeking damages for the injuries. They are claiming this under Amendment XIV
of the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S. Code § 1985, updated code from what was formerly
referred to as the Ku Klux Klan Act (1871). The defendants are claiming
freedom of speech. [1]
Even with the passage of Amendment XIV following the Civil
War, many southern state governments and police were turning a blind eye to the
amendment. Congress, by this act, was overriding state police authority and authorizing
executive action by the U.S. President under federal law. [2]
The first conviction under this act was
made against two policeman and a group of citizens who orchestrated the release
of two black men from custody who were then murdered—essentially, the police
turned over the two black men to a mob.[3]
Included in 42 U.S. Code § 1985 (3), is a phrase brought
forward from the Ku Klux Klan Act, authorizing not only the executive
branch, but citizens to bring charges against citizens; the claim under which
Charlottesville residents are suing:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire
or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the
purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of
persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
immunities under the laws; . . . whereby another is injured in his
person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege
of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an
action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation,
against any one or more of the conspirators.
As we have discussed in class, the constitution only
protects citizens from government action or actors. However, the
Charlottesville case, the civil charges against President Trump for the January
6th riots at the U.S. Capitol,[4]
and Texas Senate Bill 8[5]
are about citizens suing citizens over constitutional rights.
The question is: Should private citizens, claiming
constitutional rights, be able to bring charges against other private citizens for
recovery of damages?
Should private citizens, claiming constitutional rights, be able to bring charges against other private citizens for recovery of damages?
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this blog, the question you asked is very pertinent to the three on-going litigations you mentioned. The thought of having private citizens sue other private citizens over an infringement of a constitutional right(s) is an interesting legal action. I do think many laws already exist when it comes to penalizing individuals when harm is enacted, yet when it comes to constitutional rights, there is much left to be said.
I think the current case that is being litigated in WV is an appropriate recourse of the judicial system. The Federal Government failed to bring charges to the alleged perpetrators and thus, it is the afflicted citizens themselves that must you the existing judicial system to achieve justice, to a degree of course.
Good question. I do feel that citizens should be able to sue someone who has deprived them of their constitutional rights. If it is truly a right, than depriving someone of that right is a crime and the person deprived of that right should have recourse and redress. I think this is especially important if the appropriate authorities in the government do not assist the victim or prosecute for the wrong committed.
ReplyDeleteYes, private citizens should be able to sue another citizen civilly and recoup damages. However, citizens trying to charge other citizens criminally is an entirely different story. It is the responsibility of the government to charge someone criminally, but also, it is also the responsibility of the government to provide the avenue that follows procedural due process and allows for a fair and speedy trial. The accused is guaranteed those rights and protections under the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. If a private citizen were the entity charging the accused, there is no constitutional guarantee that due process will be followed which then violates the constitution in its own right. It’s a circular argument. Getting the government to actually follow through and prosecute is also problematic as we saw after the Civil War when new laws were enacted but ignored, but to have vigilante citizens charging each other leads to every right of the accused being violated, no matter how heinous the crime or act.
ReplyDeleteWow, I didn't realize this law existed, but I'm glad it does. I always believed it was a lapse in the justice system to not be able to hold a private citizen accountable for infringing on another citizen's constitutional rights. I'm glad to learn this has been accounted for all along. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I think it will be a hard sell for the plaintiffs to obtain a favorable ruling. (*NOTE: I DO NOT CONDONE THE ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS, RATHER I AM LOOKING AT THE CASE FROM A LEAGL STANDPOINT) The law indicates a defendant must have committed the action, "for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws." That means the plaintiffs have to prove intent, which is always the hardest element of any crime to prove. The rally was promoted as a protest against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, at least on its face. The defendants could just as easily claim they were exercising their First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble. Granted, it turned out to be anything but peaceful, but the intent cannot be judged based on the outcome.
Jacob, I agree, the most difficult part is the burden of proof for "intent" required of the plaintiffs. Consider the Texas abortion issue using the same burden of proof--the intent of the expectant mother, the doctor, or the Uber driver. Would your opinion stand? NOTE: I am not stating my opinion on this issue, just asking the question from a legal perspective.
DeleteHeck yes. I get the multiple legal perspectives and angles that could play out here - but bottom line, the burden of proof is whether the plaintiffs could bring a compelling argument before the judicial authority that would demonstrate infringement, violation of another citizens constitutional rights. Would an element of damages come into play and who determines that? Stephanie makes many, many good points with her comments. Who follows through with this and protects the victim's rights along with the elements of due process?
ReplyDeleteIn a word...yes, I do think that private citizens should be able to sue someone based on their infringement of constitutional rights. However, the more I think about it, the more it veers into thinking about last week's post about deplatforming. Would it then be possible for Donald Trump to sue Twitter for depriving him of his 1st amendment right? It's a slippery slope situation....and the more I think about it the more I feel really uncomfortable!
ReplyDeleteI think this question is easily answered by our system of civil trials and criminal trials.
ReplyDeleteCriminal trials is the state bringing suit when it recognizes a constitutional right has been infringed.
Civil trials are the mechanism that one citizen brings a grievance with another citizen to recover their damages. I would think this applies to state laws, federal laws, and constitutional infringements.
"Criminal trials is the state bringing suit when it recognizes a constitutional right has been infringed."
DeleteI would like to correct this to
Criminal trials are when the state brings a case (depending on which state actor is bringing the case - it could be a State claiming a state law has been violated, or the Federal State claiming a federal law or a constitutional right has been violated)
Wow, I didn't realize this Act still exists in 2021. As personally, Texas's government and Trump's are strong right wings, and it is very difficult to change their opinion or to will to be open with a different view of concerns on Jan 6th.
ReplyDeleteMy answer to your question is yes. However, Jan 6th is a unique situation that the government is facing. The government has to decide to allow the private citizen to use this law or not, like Stephanie's comment.