United States v. Beebe
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89005
D.N.M.2011Background
- On November 10, 2010, a federal grand jury indicted Beebe, Hatch, and Sanford for conspiring to and substantively violating 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1) (bias-motivated bodily injury).
- Section 249(a)(1) makes it a crime to willfully cause bodily injury or attempt to cause bodily injury because of the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that § 249(a)(1) exceeds Congress’s power under the Thirteenth Amendment.
- The injuries alleged involve a Navajo victim, V.K., subjected to branding, scalping, and other racially charged abuses at Beebe’s apartment in Farmington, New Mexico.
- The court evaluated whether the Thirteenth Amendment authorizes § 249(a)(1) and addressed related questions under the Fourteenth and Commerce Clauses and federalism concerns.
- The court ultimately held that § 249(a)(1) is valid under the Thirteenth Amendment and denied the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thirteenth Amendment authority for §249(a)(1) | Government: rational relation under Jones harmonized with Boerne supports validity | Beebe: Boerne controls; Jones overruled or displaced | Valid under Thirteenth Amendment |
| Harmonizing Boerne and Jones | Government: harmonization preserves Jones’s precedential role | Beebe: Boerne overrides Jones for enforcement clauses | Jones controls; harmonization feasible |
| Historical basis for ‘badges and incidents of slavery’ | Government: racially motivated violence is a badge of slavery and rationally connected | Beebe: history does not support broad interpretation | Rational historical basis; consistent with Jones |
| McCulloch v. Maryland analysis | Government: §249(a)(1) plainly adapted to eradicate badges of slavery | Beebe: challenge to means and necessity | Means are plainly adapted; ends legitimate |
| Federalism and Fifth/Commerce/Fourteenth limitations | Government: Congress may act under Thirteenth Amendment; no improper intramural intrusion | Beebe: potential overreach under federalism and equal protection concerns | No improper federalism impact; equal protection neutral; no need to resolve Commerce/Fourteenth further |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) (upholds Thirteenth Amendment authority to eradicate badges and incidents of slavery; rational basis for enforcement)
- City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (congruence and proportionality standard for enforcement clauses under Fourteenth Amendment)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) (necessity and proper clause; empowers Congress to use appropriate means)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971) (Thirteenth Amendment covers private conspiracies; broadens enforcement powers)
- Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) (Thirteenth Amendment scope to eradicate racial discrimination in private conduct)
- Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911) (Thirteenth Amendment not limited to African slavery; universal civil freedom)
- Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988) (recognizes Thirteenth Amendment reach over coercive conduct)