Screws v. United States

STATES. al. v. UNITED SCREWS et May 7, Argued 1945. October 1944. Decided No. Kemp, with Clint

Mr. James F. whom Messrs. W. peti- B. were on the Hager brief, and Robert Short tioners. Fahy,

Solicitor General with whom Attorney Assistant Clark, Tom Messrs. Erdahl General C. Robert S. and brief, Irving Shapiro on the S. were the United States. Hastie, Thurgood Messrs. William H. Marshall and Leon A. Ransom filed a brief on behalf of the National Association for the Advancement People, of Colored curiae, urging amicus affirmance. Douglas judgment announced the

Mr. Justice following Court opinion, and delivered in which the Ceciep Justice, and Mr. Justice Reed Justice Black Mr. concur. shocking

This case involves a and revolting episode in law enforcement. Petitioner sheriff Screws was of Baker County, Georgia. He enlisted the assistance petitioner Jones, petitioner a policeman, Kelley, a special deputy, in arresting Hall, Robert a citizen United States Georgia. The arrest was made night late at at Hall’s charging home on a warrant Hall with theft of a Hall, tire. young negro years thirty age, about was handcuffed and taken car to the court house. As Hall alighted from the at car the court-house square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a blackjack solid-bar eight about long inches and weighing pounds. two They claimed Hall had reached for gun and had used insulting language alighted as he from the knocked had been handcuffed, Hall, still But after car. him fifteen to from to beat they continued ground was then Hall he was unconscious. thirty minutes until into yard the court-house through feet first dragged An ambulance dying. upon the floor and thrown jail died where he hospital to a Hall was removed called consciousness. regaining and without within the hour Hall against grudge held a that Screws was evidence There “get” him. threatened to and had against petitioners was returned

An indictment —one Code, Criminal 20 of the charging a violation count conspiracy to charging a and another 18 U. C. 52§ Code, 18 of the Criminal contrary to 37§ 20§ violate provides: Sec. 20 U. S. C. 88. ordinance, statute, law, any of under color

“Whoever, to be subjects, or causes willfully custom, regulation, or Dis- Territory, or any State, inhabitant of any subjected, im- or rights, privileges, of deprivation trict to the and laws by the Constitution protected secured or munities pains, States, punishments, to different the United or of alien, an being inhabitant account of such penalties, on or race, prescribed than are color, his or byor reason of than not more be fined citizens, of shall punishment both.” year, or not more than one $1,000, imprisoned acting under charged petitioners, that The indictment Hall to be Georgia, “willfully” caused laws of color of the secured or or immunities “rights, privileges, deprived Amendment —the him Fourteenth by the to protected” process law; life without due deprived not to be right which he was upon charge on right tried, to be guilty if to be of law and found arrested, by process due Georgia; that with the laws of accordance punished wrongfully did say “unlawfully petitioners to Hall the said Robert about assault, strike and beat blackjack injuries” causing fists and a head with human immediate cause proximate “which to Hall were charge A of his death.” like was made the conspiracy count. jury.1 charged

The case tried to a The court due law jury process gave charged one with a crime right be tried by jury and sentenced by a court. charged question On the intent defendants, “. if these . . without its being necessary to effectual make the arrest or necessary to their own per- beat protection, man, sonal him assaulted him killed arrest, he was under while then acting would be illegally color law, under as stated by this statute, and depriving the prisoner would be of certain constitutional him rights guaranteed the Constitution of the United and consented the- States State of Georgia.” jury returned guilty a verdict of and a fine and im- prisonment on each count was imposed. The Circuit Appeals Court of affirmed judgment of conviction, one judge dissenting. 140 F. 2d 662. The case is here on a a writ petition for of certiorari which we granted because importance in the administration of the criminal questions laws of the presented.

I We are met at the outset with the claim that § 20 is unconstitutional, insofar as it makes criminal acts vio- lation of the process due clause of the Fourteenth Amend- argument ment. The runs as follows: It is true that this Act as in Classic, construed United States v. U. S. in upheld was its application to certain ballot box frauds committed state officials. But in that case the rights constitutional protected were to vote 1 A alleging among demurrer to the things indictment other that the charged did against matters not constitute an offense the United purview States and did not come within the of 20 was § overruled. At government’s petitioners’ the end of the case motion for a directed grounds verdict on the insufficiency of the evidence was denied. I,Art. and 4 of the Consti- guaranteed by specifically guilt. there is ascertainable standard of tution. Here no in the as to the conflicting There have been views Court The ma- process of due clause. construction proper gen- in broad quite construed it jority consistently Twining Jersey, v. New eral it in terms. Thus was stated requires 78, 101, process that due “no U. S. disregards in can be made which change procedure ancient from time principles, those fundamental ascertained process by judicial action, which have relation to time private right, in his and the citizen protect of law and arbitrary government.” action of guard against him Massachusetts, 97, 105, it was 291 U. S. Snyder v. In “offends action which prevents state process due said that in the and rooted justice so traditions some principle ranked as people as to be fundamental.” of our conscience Connecticut, Palko v. in was expressed same standard in lib- 319, 325, terms of a “scheme of ordered 302 U. S. recently phrased the same idea was as fol- erty.” And concept rigid less and phrase “The formulates a lows: in envisaged par- those other specific fluid than more Rights. application Bill of Its ticular provisions rule. is matter of Asserted denial to be tested less in given facts That totality case. an appraisal setting, constitute a denial funda- may, one fairness, justice, to the universal sense of shocking mental circumstances, light of other con- other may, Brady, Betts fall short such denial.” siderations, 455, 462. that the Act must be read as if it contained It is said fluid definitions of due process and that those broad no provides if read ascertainable it is so standard of out that States v. Cohen guilt. pointed It is Co., an Act Grocery 81, 89, Congress 255 U. down, the of which would enforcement have been

struck equivalent carry exact of an effort out a statute “the in acts merely penalized punished terms all and public unjust detrimental to the interest when and unrea- jury.” sonable in the estimation In that of the court un- making “any case declared criminal was the act just charge handling dealing- or rate in unreasonable any in or with necessaries.” 255 Act p. U. S. 86. The “unjust contained no definition of an or unreasonable rate” nor it did refer to source where the measure of “unjust or in- unreasonable” could be In the ascertained. case sure, stant the decisions a are, courts to be ascertaining source reference for specific content of the concept process. of due But even so the Act would incorporate by large reference a body of un- changing and certain law. That always law is not reducible specific rules, only is in expressible general terms, many and turns a particular times on the facts of case. it is Accordingly, legal argued body principles such a lacks the basic for criminal specificity necessary sys- statutes under our Congress government. tem of did not define what de- to punish sired but referred the citizen to a comprehensive order library law in to ascertain what acts prohibited. were To such a statute would be like enforce sanctioning Caligula practice “published who the law, but it was very in small hand, written posted up a corner, copy that no one could make a so of it.” Suetonius, Rives Caesars, p. Twelve character The serious of that challenge to the constitu tionality emphasized of the Act is if customary stand guilt for statutory ard of crimes is taken. As we shall specific intent at see, times required. Holmes, The Law, pp. seq. et general Common But the rule was States, in Ellis stated v. United 246, 257, fol “If man lows: certain intentionally adopts conduct certain circumstances known to him, that conduct is under circumstances, forbidden law those inten he tionally only breaks law the sense which law Horning see ever considers intent.” And v. District of States, 229 Columbia, v. United 135, 137; 254 U. S. Nash local law enforcement Under that test a 373, U. S. for which 20 commits federal offense officerviolates and a § which if he does an act penitentiary to the he can be sent of deprives process of due person some court later holds pure though he a criminal his motivé law. And disregard to the though purpose his was unrelated ground guarantee. of The treacherous any constitutional legislators,' police, prosecutors, on which state officials— character walk is indicated judges —would due interpreting of closeness of decisions this Court A confes Fourteenth Amendment. process clause of the Tennes long (Ashcraft v. questioning obtained too sion re see, 143); the 322 U. S. enforcement of an ordinance religious literature quiring license for the distribution of of denial Pennsylvania, 105); 319 U. S. (Murdock v. (Cf. cases types of counsel certain of the assistance Brady, Alabama, v. 287 U. 45 Betts Powell v. S. anti-picketing types the enforcement of certain supra); en Alabama, 88); v. 310 U. S. (Thornhill statutes Nebraska, price laws (Olsen of state control forcement chil requirement public U. school 236); 313 S. Barnette, flag (Board Education v. 319 dren salute act are illustrative of the kind state 624) U. S. —these might might caught not be in the broad which ion2 dependent 20 of the prevailing on view reaches of en constituted when the case arose. Those who Court as today might many law not know for months forced local not find (and out) meanwhile could did whether what process one of due deprived some law. The enforce of a criminal statute so cast ment construed would indeed 2 Moreover, as state federal as well officials would run afoul “any speaks law, statute, regulation, ordinance, it Act since Comparable application uncertainties will exist in custom.” the Fifth Amendment. process the due clause of law enforcement agencies loose at their own risk on a vast uncharted sea.

If such a construction is not necessary, be should avoided. This consistently Court has favored that inter- pretation legislation supports its constitutional- ity. Ashwander Valley Authority, v. Tennessee 288, 348; Labor Laughlin Corp., Board v. Jones & Steel 30; U. Mfg. Davis, S. Anniston Co. v. U. That 351-352. reason is impelling here if at all so possible may great allowed to its purpose— serve protection the of the individual in his civil liberties. Sec. 20 was enacted to enforce Fourteenth Amendm the. 2 ent.3 It derives4 from Rights § of the Civil Act of April 9,1866. 14 Stat. 27.5 Senator chairman Trumbull, Judiciary Senate Committee which the reported bill, purpose stated that its in protect was “to persons all the United rights, States their civil the furnish means of their vindication.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., Sess., p. origin 211. In 1st it was an antidiscrimination (as language indicated), protect measure its framed to Negroes rights. The newly Flack, Adop their won See (1908), p. of the Fourteenth Amendment 21. It was tion 3 Cong., Flack, Cong. Globe, Sess., pp. 3807-3808, 2d 3881. 41st See Adoption (1908), pp. 19-54, the Fourteenth Amendment of The Hague 223, 227; O., U. S. 510. C. 307 I. 4 Classic, 299, 327, note See United States v. 10. 5 any who, law, color any person statute, ordinance, “That under of custom, subject, subjected, any shall or cause to be regulation, or in Territory deprivation any any right State or to of habitant of by act, or protected ptiniishment, pains, this to difféfént secured or or having any person of such at time on account been held in penalties involuntary slavery servitude, except punishment or aas condition of duly party convicted, shall have by been or crime whereof for race, prescribed punishment or than his' for the of of color reason guilty misdemeanor', and, be of persons, shall deemed on white con punished by exceeding fine viction, dollars, not one thousand shall be exceeding both, imprisonment year, not one or or the discretion of the court.” 144,6 17 of Act by May 31,1870,16 §

amended of Stat. or any and made inhabitant State applicable “any Territory.”7 against “deprivation The prohibition immunities, any rights, privileges, protected or secured or of the United States” Constitution laws Those by the revisers 5510. introduced R. S. April Act 20,1871, words were taken over from of the (the Act) 17 Stat. which provided so-called Ku-Klux Cong. Rec., wrongs.8 civil suits redress of such See ordinance, any law, statute, any person who, under color “That any subjected, subject, or cause be regulation, custom, or shall deprivation any right Territory or inhabitant of State act, last or to preceding section of protected or secured person account of such be penalties on punishment, pains, different or race, prescribed his than is ing alien, color or an reason misdemeanor, citizens, guilty deemed of a punishment shall be exceeding punished by fine not one thou and, conviction, be shall on exceeding year,' both, one in the imprisonment dollars, or sand the court.” discretion of to read as follows: section referred preceding jurisdiction of the States within shall persons

“That all every Territory in right in State and the United States have the same sue, parties, give evidence, contracts, to enforce to make and proceedings security equal all laws and for the benefit of to the full and enjoyed by citizens, property as is white and shall be person and of taxes, subject punishment, pains, penalties, licenses, exac- and to like any law, statute, kind, other, regu- every ordinance, and none tions of notwithstanding. contrary charge No tax or lation, to the or custom any upon immigrat- by any person imposed enforced State or shall be foreign country equally imposed which is not ing from a thereto every immigrating any person to such State from upon other enforced any any country; provi- law State in conflict with foreign of this hereby null and void.” declared sion is Stewart, operation sponsor, stated “It extends the Its Senator rights bill, which is well known in the civil Senate and to the of the jurisdiction country, persons within of to all States.” Cong., p. 1536. Cong. Globe, Sess., 41st 2d part: provided That section any law, who, statute, ordinance, under .color any person of “That usage subject, custom, any State, shall regulation, of or cause to be Cong., Sess., 43d 1st p. 828. The 1874 revision was applicable to any person etc., who under color law, of “subjects, subjected” or causes to be any inhabitant to the any deprivation rights, of requirement etc. The for a “willful” violation was introduced the draftsmen of the Criminal Code 1909. of Act of March 35 Stat. 1092. And we are told “willfully” was added to 20 in § to make order the section “less 43 Cong. Rec., severe.” Cong., Sess., 2d p. 60th 3599. say Congress hesitate to that when sought

We to enforce Fourteenth Amendment9 in this fashion it did a vain thing. We hesitate to conclude for 80 years ef renewed Congress, several times, fort to protect rights the individual important guaranteed by the Amendment has been gesture. Fourteenth an idle Yet if vagueness falls reason of the Act far so as due process concerned, is there would seem of law to be a similar lack when the privileges specificity immunities clause Kentucky, (Madden 83) 309 U. S. equal v. and the pro Texas, (Smith clause v. 311 U. Hill 128; tection S. Texas, Fourteenth 400) U. of the Amendment are involved. if can the Act construction save from Only no this claim unconstitutionality willing are we reach result. it, reach for we do not are of view that if We 20 § than the lower narrowly confined more courts it, confined be preserved can one sanctions to great the Fourteenth Amendment designed secure. jurisdiction

subjected, any person within the United States any rights, privileges,'or deprivation immunities to the secured any shall, law, statute, States, such the Constitution of the United usage contrary the State to the ordinance, regulation, custom, not- injured withstanding, party law, to the action at liable suit proceeding . . equity, proper for redress .” or other 1979 of Revised This section became Statutes and is now Hague O., supra, I. v. C. 3, p. C. 43. See note found 9 Congress provides: power “The shall have en- Sec. 5 thereof to by appropriate legislation, provisions force, this Article.”

101 II “of is word out that “willful” a recently pointed We being influenced its often meanings, construction many States, 497. Spies United 317 U. S. its v. context.” Murdock, States v. held United times, as the Court At which act is inten word denotes an 389, 394, 290 U. S. United States v. And see than accidental. tional rather Co., 239. Central R. 303 U. But “when used Illinois S. act done with generally means an criminal statute it a v. United Id., see Felton And p. purpose.” bad States, States, Potter United S. U. 699; 96 U. v. S. States, Hargrove v. 728; U. Spurr United 438; v. States, 67 F. 2d 820. something In that event United doing proscribed by act required than more Balint, United States v. U. S. 250. Cf. statute. con accomplish to statute An motive which evil Spurr element of the crime. becomes a constituent demns States, supra, Murdock, United States United p. 734; v. v. must And that issue be submitted to the supra, p. 395. instructions. States jury appropriate under Bagen, 513, 524. U. S. in which analysis “willfully” the cases has

An been than act which is more an voluntary held to connote prove helpful each would not as turns on intentional its cases, Those however, own facts. make peculiar clear “willfully” in 20 connoting if we construe a pur- deprive person specific of a constitutional pose right, introduce no innovation. The Court, we indeed, would requirement recognized specific of a has intent may act avoid prohibited consequences those ado may vague otherwise render a or in- accused invalid. statute The constitutional vice definite such injustice placing to the accused of is the essential a statute nature which offense, an the statute him trial for on gives warning. no define and hence of which does not § 1-4 Co., Grocery supra.

See United States v. But Cohen an punishment imposed only where the is act know- doing that which the ingly purpose done to suffer from prohibits, the accused cannot be said statute is warning knowledge lack act which he does or that the must requirement a violation law. The that the act may certain, pur- for all purposeful willful or not render poses, statutory a the crime which in some definition of respects uncertain. But does relieve the statute of the objection it punishes warning that without an offense of That pointed which accused was unaware. was out by Mr. Brandéis speaking Justice for the Court Idaho, 246 Omaechevarria v. U. S. 343. An statute Idaho graze sheep it misdemeanor “upon range made a occupied usually by any grower.” argument cattle The the statute void for was indefiniteness because provide it failed to for the ascertainment of boundaries of “range” determining length a or for what of time was necessary prior a occupation to make “usual” The a one. “any danger Court ruled that sheepmen might which otherwise arise from indefiniteness, is removed Codes, of Revised which provides that: Tn crime every public or offense union, joint there must exist opera- a or ” tion, of and intent, Id., act negligence/ criminal p. A similar ruling Hygrade was made in Provision Sherman, Co. v. 266 U. S. 497. charge was that a criminal regulated statute which the sale of “kosher” meat products “sanctioned the orthodox religious Hebrew requirements” was unconstitutional for want of any ascer- guilt. tainable standard of The Court speaking through Mr. Justice stated, Sutherland “. . . since the statutes require specific intent to defraud in order to encounter their prohibitions, the hazard prosecution appel- lants fear loses whatever substantial foundation it might have in the absence of such requirement.” pp. In 502-503. Ragen, United States v. supra, we took a federal evasion willful prosecution in a course had the defendant alleged it was tax where income for salaries. allowances “reasonable” more than deducted faith of bad proof require statute to By construing the rule of United which the question the serious we avoided Co., supra, might presented. Grocery v. Cohen States appropriate here. is like course think a We support of 20 affords some history Moreover, seen, word we have As construction. that narrower Act Prior to the until 1909. not added “willfully” was Congress intended that he who that may be time to that it by the Constitu any right protected of person a deprived the pattern without more. That was be liable should tion which has been sustained without legislation of criminal v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co. of scienter. any charge proof Balint, supra. Minnesota, States v. 57; U. S. United original form would have been Act its present And the interpretation equal from the apart the same susceptible of Fourteenth where Amendment, clause of protection Snow discriminatory” action must be shown. “purposeful seen, S. 8-9. But as we have Hughes, v. 321 U. den make the section “willfully” was added to “less se word permissible think the inference is its We vere.” by making applicable be lessened severity only was to purpose bad thus requisite present, requir where where only intent discrimination is claimed ing specific as well. We that the repeat pres but other situations purpose a bad or evil intent alone may ence of not be suf say requirement specific We do that a ficient. a intent right a federal made deprive person definite de law cision or other rule of saves the Act from charge unconstitutionality grounds vagueness. on the given construction, Once the section is we think the claim that the section lacks an ascertainable guilt require- standard of must fail. The constitutional statpte ment that a criminal be definite high serves a func- person acting It with to the gives tion. reference statute warning fair conduct its prohibition. that his is within requirement prohibits only This met when is a statute “willful” acts in the sense we have One who explained. specific does act with such intent what he is aware that is He is precisely does that which statute forbids. necessity guessing under no whether statute applies (see Co., him Connolly General Construction 385) disregard U. he either knows or acts reckless deprivation prohibition of its of a defined constitu- States, right. federal See tional or other Gorin v. 19,27-28. beyond is such an act Nor under- juries standing comprehension summoned pass The Act then not a trap on them. would become for law agencies acting in “A good enforcement faith. mind in- tent willful upon surprised evasion inconsistent Ragen, supra, p. United States v. innocence.” said, however, It is that construction of the Act vagueness it infirmity will not from the of save since official judge neither a law enforcement nor trial a can range know with sufficient definiteness the of that are constitutional. But that criticism is wide of the mark. required specific by For the intent the Act is an intent deprive person which right to of a been made specific has of express terms by either Constitution or laws of States or decisions interpreting United them. Take persists who a local officer in case of enforcing type which has of ordinance the Court held invalid as violative speech guarantees of free or freedom of worship. official continues to juries Or a local select in a manner in the teeth of which flies decisions of the Court. If are how willfully, acts done can those the officer possibly warning that he had no fair his claim that acts were pro- He hibited the statute? violates the statute not merely purpose because he has a bad but because he acts in rules defiance announced He law. who defies a precisely knows interpreting the Constitution decision say may heard to hardly If he be doing. sane, what he is conduct course, what did. Of willful that he knew not he will- But is undefined. cannot make definite that which have requirements, ful violators of constitutional they defined, certainly say been to position are no they would adequate had notice no advance willfully punishment. they act visited with When de- they open act word, the sense in which we use the require- constitutional fiance in reckless of a disregard ment definite. When specific which has been made punished are not acting, they are convicted for so violating something. an unknowable range narrower in all its

The Act so construed has a manner applications interpreted than if it in the were urged by government. only But alterna- other tive, grave questions, if we are to avoid constitutional applicable only it as to those acts which are construe provisions clearly specific marked the Constitu- deprivations rights, privileges, of constitutional tion as immunities, knowingly and which are within the done States, supra. v. rule of Ellis said, But as we protection would mean that all course violations law drop would out of the We take process of due Act. possible preserve which makes it the course the entire parts challenge. of it from all constitutional Act and save give the Act wider scope, may desires find Congress If Apex Hosiery doing Moreover, so. here as Co. ways Leader, dealing we are U. S. with a situation the Act which interpretation adopt we where the does punishing any state from not act made preclude Indeed, the its own narrow by laws. construc- criminal more adopted nearly preserves we have which tion and the balance between the States national traditional that which government urged in law enforcement is than upon us.- Classic, supra, suggest. States v. met the test we

United merely validity case with the dealing In that we were The indictment, jury. an not instructions to the it a charged indictment was since sufficient willful failure and refusal of the defendant election officials to count the and cast, by votes their alteration of the ballots their number of for the false certification of the votes cast re pp. right candidates. The spective 313 U. S. 308-309. I, 2 guaranteed by to vote is Art. Con § § so charge adequate since he who stitution. Such a alters legal justification destroys them ballots without would acting in which willfully sense 20 uses term. may fact that the defendants not thinking have been terms is not material where their aim constitutional was deprive law but right enforce local a citizen of a right protected that Constitution. When disregard they so act at least act reckless they of con prohibitions guarantees. Likewise, stitutional it isl concept that plain process basic due of law in criminal case is a trial —a trial a court law, not a Brown Mississippi, “trial ordeal.” hardly It could be doubted that who “under any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, color or cus act with evil tom” motive violate 20. Those who as; decide to law own take the into their hands act to; prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner plainly act prisoner deprive trial due process of law: ex-, guarantees purpose him. And such a need not be pressed; may at times be reasonably inferred from all circumstances attendant on the act. See Tot v. States, U. S. 463.

The difficulty here is this question of intent was not submitted jury to the with the proper instructions. charged petitioners The court illegally acted if they applied more than force was necessary to make the arrest effectual or to protect themselves from the prisoner’s al- the word construction view of our assault. But leged instructed further have been the should “willfully” jury generally had petitioners not-sufficient that it was them to necessary for \,To was convict it purpose. bad deprive purpose had the petitioners find that right-to be right, g.e. prisoner of a constitutional tried/ determining than And rather by a court ordeal.^ jury purpose present bad requisite whether the attendant circum- entitled to consider all would be used petitioners, weapons malice of stances —the if duration, provocation, character and assault, its like. any, and the exception was taken to the trial court’s that no

It is true circumstances we would under those charge. Normally States, of the error. See Johnson v. United not take note rule. 189, exceptions 200. But there are to that U. Atkinson, Clyatt United States v. 160; U. S. States, 221-222. And where jury is so fundamental error submit ingredients on which the only the essential offense rest, necessary could to take note conviction we think it is guilty our own Even those of the most on motion. heinous offenses are entitled fair trial. Whatever the to a degree guilt, those federal crime are charged entitled to be tried guilt the standards of Con- gress prescribed. has

Ill It said, however, petitioners did not act “under meaning color of law” within the 20§ disagree. Criminal Code. We We are of the view that petitioners acted under “color” of law in making the arrest Hall in assaulting Robert him. They were officers of the law made the By who arrest. their own admissions Hall in protect assaulted order to themselves and to keep prisoner their from escaping. It was their duty Hence, Georgia law effective.

under to make the arrest their conduct comes within the statute. have been advanced in arguments

Some ques- suggest that the contrary conclusion support of the made it a federal Congress has tion under 20 is whether the law of his State. offense for a state officer to violate in state treating question the But there is no warrant whether law has problem law terms. The is not state has been violated but whether an inhabitant of a State under right by federal one who acts deprived been of a “color” He who acts under of law any “color of law.” may officer. He act may be a federal officer or a state law. The statute “color” of federal law or of state under federal law play merely because the does not come into purports to act is law which the officer or the state under only when someone applicable when and violated. It is The right that action. deprived by of a federal fact is law does not make it any of state that it is also a violation as Nor punishable federal offense such. does the less a encroach by authority federal on state punishment its from authority responsibility or relieve the state its punishing state offenses.10 applied agree that when this statute is to the action

We officials, respect be construed as to should so of state govern- between the States and the federal proper balance Violation in law enforcement. of local law does not ment mean that federal invaded. necessarily been assaulted, is even prisoner injured, fact that a or The necessarily does not mean that by state officials murdered or secured right protected deprived he 10 manslaughter or murder petitioners may guilty be under federal pro for the offense Georgia and at the same time liable law denounced “an act as by 20. The instances where a crime scribed sovereignties” may punished by state each both national and jeopardy provision of the Fifth the double Amend without violation of Lanza, 382; 260 common. United States v. U. S. ment are Louisiana, 272 Hebert v. U.

109 Logan v. Cf. United States. laws Constitution with assaults States, 144 263, dealing United U. S. did not Amendment Fourteenth officials. The

federal na States relations between the alter basic Harris, U. S. States v. United government. tional ; Kemmler, national 448. Our 629 In U. S. re our Under powers alone. government delegated is one of rests justice system administration of criminal federal scope within Congress, acting except with the States against offenses powers, has created delegated those States, U. S. v. United Jerome United States. Cruikshank, States 101, 106. stated As duty within the 542, 653-554, U. S. “It is no more to conspiracy for a power punish of United to the States it would State, than within a falsely imprison or murder itself.” or murder punish imprisonment be to for false Fox, is States v. S. It 670, And see 95 U. pro only “particular character” that is state action of a which against hibited Fourteenth Amendment and the Congress the Amendment authorizes to afford relief. Cases, Rights Civil in Congress 109 U. S. 3, 11, 13. Thus § 20 of did make all the Criminal Code not undertake to brought torts of state federal crimes. It within officials of only and then specified acts done “under color” law only deprived person right those acts which of some States. secured the Constitution or of the United laws Classic, United States This section was before us in 299, 326, “Misuse pos- where we said: of power, by virtue of state law and made be- possible only sessed wrongdoer cause the clothed with the authority is of state law, is taken ‘under color In action of’ state law.” that charged officials case state election were failure to cast, ballots, alteration the count votes of false respective certification of the number of cast for the votes U. pp. candidates. 308-309. We stated that those in acts of the defendants “were committed the course of under the Louisiana performance their duties statute ballots, them to record the result requiring to count certify count, and to the result of the election.” Id,., present case, said, In pp. 325-326. as we have defendants were officers the law had made who an arrest and who their own admissions made assault protect prisoner in order and to keep to themselves e., escaping, from i. to make the arrest That effective. duty had they Georgia was a under law. United States is, therefore, indistinguishable v. Classic so from case far as “under color of” law In state is concerned. each performing officers the State were official duties; power each the were authorized exercise was misused. We cannot draw a distinction between them say unless we are applicable 20 is police not officers. But the broad sweep language its leaves no room such an exception.

It is said that we should abandon holding suggested It Classic case. present problem was clearly case focus and that its holding was A reading ill-advised. the opinion plain makes that the question squarely involved and met. It squarely fol- parte lowed the rule Ex announced Virginia, 100 U. S. judge that a state inwho violation of state law against negroes in discriminated the selection juries the Act of March 1, 1875, violated 18 Stat. 336. It is that true statute did not contain the words under “color” of law. in But the Court deciding what was state within meaning action the of the Fourteenth Amendment held it immaterial that was that the state officer exceeded authority. limits the of his “. . . as he acts in the name State, the clothed is with the State’s power, his is act that of the State. This must so, or the con- prohibition stitutional meaning. has no Then the State has clothed one agents of its with power to annul or to evade it.” 100 U. S. at p. Rives, 347. And Virginia see

Ill 313, 321. The Classic case without recognized, 100 U. dissent, pur view contrary great that the would defeat the designed which 20 to serve. pose § Reference his made to statements11 of Senator Trumbull in discus 27, Rights Civil Act 14 of of Stat. sion concerning of Senator Sherman the 1870 to statements as that “under color of supporting Act12 the conclusion designed only law” was to action taken any include to law. But those in pursuant officials state statements on in precise context are inconclusive the problem their in present in case and We the Classic case. volved here with a case where an officer not dealing au are nevertheless takes action. Here the state to act thorized to take to make an arrest and were authorized such officers necessary make the arrest effective. They as were to steps they in sense that authority only used without

acted in It is making arrest effective. clear force excessive “pretense” means of law under law. under “color” personal pursuits ambit their officers Thus acts of Acts of officers who undertake to excluded. plainly are are included whether hew official duties their perform authority overstep If, it. their sug line of designed only to embrace action statute was gested, authorized, the words fact “under the State which hardly apt words express were law” any color idea. under 33 of the Judicial Code, decisions are the

Nor That point. gives section right C. § U. S. criminal any prosecution federal court to a removal against revenue officer of court state begun done under act color “on account States (revenue) law.” The cases under any such or of his office “exceptional” procedure it is an recognize against power try offenses courts the from state wrests Sess., p. Cong., 1st 1759. Cong. Globe, 39th Sess., p. Cong., 2d Cong. Globe, 41st (No. 9, Maryland Soper own their laws. v. 270 U. 1), 29, 35; Symes, Colorado v. 286 U. S. 518. Thus requirements necessary of the are showing for removal Maryland 36, 42, Soper (No. 2), strict. See 270 U. S. ef saying “necessary that acts to enforcement make fective” are of law. Hence those cases done under “color” guide problems do not an supply authoritative to under 20 which protection against seeks to afford officers who their possess authority to act and who exercise powers deprive person way such to to secured him by the or laws of the United It Constitution States. thing deprive is one authority courts their state their quite enforce own laws. It is another to emasculate Congress an designed Act their secure individuals rights by constitutional finely spun distinctions concern ing precise scope authority officers of the law. Hopkins, Yick Cf. Wo v. 118 U. S. 356. beyond

But problem that is the of stare decisis. The construction given Classic formulated a case rule law which has become basis of federal enforce- ment in important field. The rule adopted case was formulated after mature consideration. It should be good for more day only. than one We do not here comparable have a situation to Mahnich v. Southern Co., S. S. where we overruled a decision sport demonstrated to be a in the law and inconsistent with what preceded and what followed. The Classic case was not the product hasty action or It inadvertence. was not out of with the cases line which preceded. It designed to fashion the governing rule of law in this important field. areWe dealing constitutional throughout which interpretations history of the Court wisely subject remained flexible and to frequent re- examination. The meaning the Classic case gave phrase to the “under color law” involved only a construction of the statute. Hence if it states a rule un- Congress consequences, change in its can it. desirable instability uncertainty of the law only to the We add exigencies the meaning the 20 to meet if we revise before us. coming each case trial, the judgment be a new below there must

Since

Reversed. Rutledge, in the result. concurring Mr. Justice the end of this compelling reason stated at For the reversing judgment I and remand- concur in the opinion rea- ing proceedings. for further But for that the cause affirm my vote cast to my require views would son, the stated Mr. Justice judgment, reasons Murphy peculiar situation, I forced, and others feel to state. gross abuse

The case here established in fact as comes state’s officers. Entrusted authority state one of using it, only without a warrant or with power and home, citizen’s arrested legality1 they invaded a doubtful took him in hand- tire, forcibly him of a alleged theft him beat to death. yard, courthouse and there cuffs to the him, them- they kill fortified had threatened to Previously impor- bartender’s bar, at a and resisted the near-by selves Upon this and other carry out the arrest. tunities not 2d (140 F. at overwhelmingly supports evidence together 665) verdict, adequately with instructions conflicting warrant was made whether the out The evidence was killing, after, if before, issued before the arrest and and issued Appeals The noted there was hand, it valid. Court whether was prepared by alleged arrest warrant of evidence “that (140 665), afterthought” F. 2d at spurious but and was a sheriff warrant had been issued. petitioner’s favor that a valid assumed shotgun dissenting opinion was taken from his said the victim’s person apparently without “not in a of his but home search lawful F. at warrant.” 2d found the

covering right force, jury an officer’s to use petitioners guilty.

I has their Their con- shaped position The verdict here. on disputes They which rests.2 hardly tention facts officers, state innocent of do come therefore faithful Accordingly, has been foreclosed. Justification crime. argument now offense, their admits the but insists it was alone, against the state not the nation. So their made case this Court.3 position urges effect, they done,4 In it murder is deprivation right. Strange not constitutional as the this, reason. It comes argument to that abuse of power immunity state creates to federal Because power. laws, did violated the they what state’s cannot nation may deprive reach their conduct.5 It the citizen his life. and his But whatever liberty may state officers do of their official capacity give abuse can this Government its no though object courts concern. This, prime of the Fourteenth Amendment and 20§ was to secure rights against these fundamental wrongful denial by exer power cise of the of the states.

The defense is not pretty. Nor is it valid. long a By of decision Ex parte course from Virginia, 100 339, U. S. Classic, to United States v. U. S. it 313 has been re- 2 dispute The crucial fact was over whether the defendants had used more necessary prisoner. force than was to restrain The weight “overwhelming (140 F. 2d at testimony” 665) was that only required (if all used not force to subdue him it is assumed he resisted), but continued thirty to beat him fifteen minutes after ground. he was knocked to the 3 Cf. Part II infra.

4 dissenting judge The Appeals thought in the Court of the local was murder, offense not “wilful but rather that involuntary was manslaughter in the commission of an unlawful act.” 140 F. 2d at 666. 5 appear It does not any has steps state taken toward prosecution for violation of its law.

115 again. ploughing need not should ground jected.6 kept It been has thoroughly. long ago and It was cleared was beginning, laid in the doubt, ancient clear, until the The evidence this case. stage the last resurrected acted indi- petitioners pretense that any has nullified business. though nefarious personal about their viduals, was done. in all that power place of official They used the claim semblance of The verdict has foreclosed functions, official were only matters, touching private they say. power, state’s involved. Yet neither category. The Amendment and is no third There action. Abuse rightful were not aimed at state legislation target. put were state power was the Limits state them, authority, pass and states were forbidden to were better agency.7 It is too late if there now, whatever in these doing question exists for so, reason than done act, when matters abuse binds the state and is its 397; Delaware, Cf. U. S. Akron, v. Angeles, 288-289; Cuyahoga Power Co. 278, Los S. 227 U. 426, 434; 462; Fidelity Tafoya, 270 Deposit 240 U. S. U. S. & Co. v. 398; Hopkins Telephone Co., 393, 275 v. U. S. Southern California 245-246; 239, Nixon v. Bennett, Iowa-Des Moines Bank v. 284 U. S. City 29; Condon, 73, 89; Phoenix, 287 286 U. Mosher v. U. S. S. of 393; Mooney Sterling Constantin, Holohan, 378, 287 S. v. 294 v. U. 343; 103; Canada, 337, U. S. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. 305 S.U. Hague O., 496, 512; Kansas, I. 307 U. S. Cochran v. 316 S. v. C. U. Kansas, 255; Pyle v. 317 S. 213. U. 7 prohibitions Fourteenth Amendment “The of the are directed to States, Congress empowered enforce, ... the It is these which against action, put forth, and to State however that enforce whether executive, legislative, judicial. Whoever, by action be or . . . virtue public position deprives under government, of a State another of property, life, liberty, process law, or without due of or denies or takes equal away protection laws, the violates the constitutional inhibition; and he acts in the name State, and for the and is clothed power, so, with the State’s act is his that of the This State. must be 116 given

one to whom it has make the power abuse effective Vague to achieve the forbidden of ends. ideas dual fede ralism,8 of ultra vires from imported doctrine private agency,9 of finality and want of in official action,10 do not nullify years what four of civil secured eighty strife years For it have verified-.--* was. abuse of basic civil political rights, by officials, and their states the legislation enforcing Amendment the were adopted to uproot. danger merely legislative judicial. was not Nor only highest threatened from state’s officials. agency

It was abuse might whatever the state invest power capable inflicting with its of deprivation. In all flux, time things its makes some axiomatic. One has been that state officials who violate their oaths officeand flout meaning.” prohibition parte Virginia, or the constitutional has no Ex 339, 100 S. 346-347. U. power, possessed by

“Misuse virtue of state pos- law and made only wrongdoer authority sible is clothed with because law, state is action taken 'under color state law.” of’ United States v. Classic, 299, 326, citing Virginia, parte supra, 313 U. S. Ex and other authorities. 8 Cf. Part III “Such enforcement the Fourteenth [of infra. by Congress] is sovereignty. Amendment no invasion of State No be, people have, by law which the can of the States the Constitution States, empowered Congress of the United to enact. This extent of powers general government is overlooked, said, when it is ease, as it has been 1, 1875, act March Stat., [18 part 3, rights.” parte interferes with State Ex Virginia, 336] 100 U. 346. S. at Angeles, Tel. Tel. v. 278, Home & Co. Los Cf. U. S. 10Compare Barney City York, 430, v. New 193 U. S. with Home Angeles, 278, Tel. Tel. Co. v. & Los suggesting latter former, Raymond “if it conflicted with the doctrine” Chicago Co., parte Traction Young, and Ex U. S.U. “is now distinguished qualified so as not here authoritative or even persuasive.” 227 Hughes, S. at 294. See U. also Snowden v. 1, 13; Isseks, U. S. Jurisdiction Lower Federal Enjoin to Courts Officials, Action of Unauthorized State Harv. L. Rev. to it when their answerable law are the fundamental it authorizes upon penalty them the brings (cid:127)misconduct provided. has Congress the Amendment be no violation There could clearer complete, final or to more could be No act the statute. the Amendment’s rights secured the victim denude cannot re- destroyed be Those so very terms. in state’s played by power the part Nor could stored. lessened, though organs other their destruction causing what done. The state’s law was repudiate were now to so, If the vindication could be vindicated. might thus from the power. not detract federal only sustain, it could power the federal it restore what shielded. Nor could conviction, though nor affirmed acquittal Neither court, what the highest wrongful could resurrect state’s annihilated. There in has was power use of state power, which for Amendment’s case abuse state action, final in degree, was state the last great purposes liberty his and his the victim of life without depriving law. process due made the parties

If issues themselves were al- would be no to say there need lowed to more. At govern, sought stages have to petitioners various show than was necessary, more force there used no was no action, the evidence state sufficient judgment. verdict These issues, sustain various, formulations,11 comprehended have their case. against been resolved them without All error. This the matter. should end objections law specifically were most Petitioners’ stated grounds incorporated These also were

demurrer to indictment. grounds a directed verdict and their motion for statement of their grounds for appeal. The demurrer maintained that facts alleged not sufficient constitute a federal offense, were fall within jurisdic statute, the terms of federal law or or violate or to confer upon ground tion the District other federal court. One attacked vagueness. the indictment for 118

II other important But and most issues injected have been made judgment. decisive to reverse Petitioners not they have denied that “willfully” acted within the meaning §of 20 or that they intended to do the acts took their liberty victim’s and life. In the trial they court justification. they claimed But were prove unable to it. verdict, The on overwhelming evidence, has concluded against them their denial of purpose bad and reckless dis- rights. regard of This is in implied the find- necessarily ing that excessive force was used. complaint No in charge made any of these respects and no re- charges quest for additional concerning them was offered. in Nor, application for certiorari briefs, or the have questions raised requisite criminal intent or vagueness in of unconstitutional the statute’s definition However, of the crime. these issues have been brought forward, far record discloses, so as the first by the dissent- in ing opinion Appeals, the Court of then by inquiry at argument disposition and in the here. story would in long, be too to trace more than out- history companion line the of 20 and in provisions, par- 19,12 which must ticular be any considered on suggestion ambiguity. of fatal But this history cannot be ignored, unless risk throwing we would overboard what greatest the nation’s internal conflict eight created and (18 51): Criminal Section Code U. S. C. § conspire persons “If more injure, oppress, threaten, two or or in- any enjoyment right citizen in or any timidate exercise or free privilege him or secured to Constitution laws the United States, having same, his so or because of exercised the if or two or persons go disguise highway, premises more on the or on the of an- other, prevent enjoyment with intent to or hinder his free exercise or right any privilege secured, they so shall be fined not more than $5,000 imprisoned years, more than ten shall, moreover, ineligible any office, place honor, profit, thereafter or trust individual confirmed, protection decades states. by against impairment respects all twin sections 19 and are

Sections defining the crimes. vagueness question of concern 19 strikes at differences. Section important There are The former offenses. 20 at substantive conspiracies, § are, There “inhabitants.” “citizens,” the latter protects Each rights guarded. in the basic however, differences no se- rights privileges and way different protects falls for If one the Constitution. individuals cured to must fall also pointing these, to other vagueness in It both. is stands, If so must reason. one for the same It nullify. we or therefore which sustain one statute not is two. Nor eighty years. for nearly have stood

The sections Together for ambiguity. without attack has this been of this Court’s repelled it. In one two sections have disposed of it, judges, speaking summarily greatest “It question 19 is not open § invalid: is suggestion with dealt is constitutional... this statute [It] rights, with Federal and rights protected all Federal Mosley, . .” United States v. . lump them Classic, And in United States 383, 386, S. U. vigor reaffirmed the valid- equal the Court

U. against dissenting for fatal ity sections, of both assault (Em- States.” or laws the United created the Constitution phasis added.) (18 52) is as follows:

Section U. S. C. § ordinance, law, statute, regulation, “Whoever, any under color of or willfully subjected, subjects, causes to be inhabitant of custom, or deprivation any rights, priv- to Territory, any State, or District protected by ileges, secured the Constitution or immunities or States, laws punishments, pains, penal- or or to different being alien, ties, inhabitant an or reason of on account of such his punishment color, prescribed citizens, for the shall race, than are imprisoned year, $1,000, not more not more than than one be fined added.) (Emphasis or both.” ambiguity in relation to the constitutional then in question. These more recent pronouncements but re- affirmed earlier repeated ones. The history should not retelling. But require old and established freedoms van- ish when history forgotten. originated

Section 20 Rights the Civil Act of 1866 (14 27), Stat. 19 in § the Enforcement (16 Act of 1870 141,- 6). Stat. Their great original purpose was strike at discrimination, particularly against Negroes, the one securing civil, political rights. the other But were drawn narrowly. so From the beginning pro- 19§ tected all “citizens,” § 20 “inhabitants.”

At .first 20 only rights secured enumerated the Civil Rights Act. years brought it, The first ten through broad- ening changes, substantially its present form. Only the “willfully” word has then, been added since a change of no materiality, implied the statute it beforehand.13 35 important Stat. 1092. The change most of the first decade specific replaced the enumeration of the Rights Civil Act present language with the broad covering deprivation “the any privileges, of rights, or immunities, secured pro- or tected Constitution and of the laws United States.” designation R. S. 5510. This § inclusive brought 20§ original conformity § into 19’s coverage “any right of him by to privilege secured the Constitution or laws then, of the United States.” Since under generic these designations, two have been literally identical in the rights they scope slight secure. The in difference wording cannot be one of substance.14

13 vetoing Johnson, July 16, Cf. note 32. President another bill on Rights 1866, penalties stated that the of the Civil Act “are denounced willfully Cong. against person Globe, who violates the law.” 39th Cong., Sess., 1st 3839. 14 history changes, see the authorities in For the these cited Douglas, particularly Flack, Adoption opinion of of the Mr. Justice (1908). Fourteenth Amendment application Throughout long varied course vague- unimpaired have remained on score sections today they in From 1874 to ness the crimes denounce. them. repelled proposed all attacks invalidate If decision can None has succeeded. time and uniform statutes, acquired it. give stability these have used, applica in 20 much direct Section has not been tion, number until There however a recently. were applied early decisions.15 Of the section has been late situation, variety more frequently, considerable v. States vigorous In United against varied and attack.16 Classic, gave 321, stated, Court U. S. at as has been 313 expressly repudiated opinion it clear-cut sanction. The any ambi section, idea that is vitiated 19,§ no guity. Moreover, this done in terms which leave upon that say room to that the decision was not focused question.17 True, application to Fourteenth Amendment 15 Rhodes, 785, 16,151; States 27 Fed. Cas. No. United United v. Buntin, Jackson, 563, 15,459; No. States v. 26 Fed. Cas. States 836, Stone, prosecution F. under 730; F. States v. 188 10 cf. United 20; cf., conspiracy 197 to violate also Criminal 37 of the Code 375, 15,392. Horton, 483; 26 Fed. Cas. No. United States v. F. constitutionality statute was sustained the Rhodes case of the in 1874. It was likewise sustained in the Jackson case Moody, 14,247 (1867); Turner, Smith v. No. In re Fed. Cas. (1866). 26 Ind. cited at note Cf. authorities infra section, generality Referring said: “The 20, the Court to § deprivations right, is to constitutional applicable as it made meaning impair scope of or its force within the its not obscure does by deprivations restricted its terms to application, which is its acting any law, by color willfully those under statute inflicted are at 313 S. 328. the like.” U. Concerning involved, pointed 19, also the Court decisions § Yarbrough, 651, Mosley, United v. parte S. Ex U. States in . cf. and commented: . the Court note found 238 U. S. ambiguity uncertainty statutory language, obviously or in the de no enjoyment protect citizen ‘in the free or vised to exercise

toto rights was reserved because the question was raised for in the first time the Government’s brief filed here. 313 U. S. at 329. But the statute in applica- was sustained range rights tion to vast Constitution, a by secured apart segment, from reserved as the opinion’s language single and the reservation itself attest. The ruling, thus broad, could not have been inadvertent. it For was re- peated sections, both concerning broadly, forcefully, and long-established upon authority. citation And this was in response vigorous done to a dissent which made the most vagueness.18 point point The was flatly, and rejected. deliberately, The Court could not have been by blinded other issues to the import of this one. put The Classic decision thus cannot aside rights Nor can it be demonstrated that the case. secured by the Fourteenth Amendment are more numerous or aggregate encompassed than the by more dubious other right privilege secured to him the and concerned Constitution/ right participate question choosing whether itself with the Such is function representative is so secured. our here.” 313 U. S. suggestion opinion further: at 321. The stated “The 19 . . . § specific applicable primary sufficiently to be deemed is not elec- tions, speaks hardly will bear examination. Section 19 neither of unambiguous language primaries. protects ‘any elections nor of In it right privilege phrase secured which . . . Constitution/ right to the the voter his vote extends to have counted ... wholly aswell to numerous other constitutional which are un- representative Congress,” the choice citing related to of a United 76; Logan Waddell, States, v. v. 263; States U. 144 U. S. Quarles, 532; Motes United States, 458; In re 178 U. S. States, 238 Guinn S. 347. note v. United Cf. U. urge dissenting opinion did wholly and 20 are §§ ambiguity, put it involving since to one cases void side discrimina “plainly tion for race or color as outlawed the Fourteenth Amend ment,” said, as to which it was “Since the constitutional mandate is plain, why there is no reason 19 or applicable.” 20 should not be thought unambiguous such However was “no mandate” had been given by provisions constitutional relevant the Classic case. 313 U. S. at 332. protec- “the Certainly equal provisions.

constitutional Amendment, is not by the laws,” guaranteed tion the by rights many protected than indefinite vague more privi- of “the thing The is true same other commands.19 citizens the United States.” leges immunities of clause as broad process contains a due Fifth Amendment the Fourteenth restricting power national terms its in general is valid (with 19)§ If 20 power.20 is of state be void it cannot rights, coverage of other constitutional Fourteenth Amendment to sweeping application the less “plainly di- rights the If it is valid assure rights. equally it is valid to by provisions, secured other rectly” the Four- directly” secured “plainly and those protect guaranteed including expressly Amendment, teenth life, liberty or deprived property not to be rights If in fact there could be of law. due process without rights view of among protected, various difference applies be that the section more history it would Amendment rights than to others. to Fourteenth clearly large generalities. they all phrases “are But Its phrases vagueness; they of unillumined are generalities not are by history and appropriate circumscribed generalities government problems largeness York, were concerned.” Malinski New 401, concurring opinion, p. 413.

Historically, the section’s function and purpose have rights given been to secure Amendment. From adoption until it the Amendment’s was Fourteenth legislation. Surely when in. year Amendment expanded include other section these were note Cf. are coextensive limitation Whether or two of federal certainly very there power, respectively, and state broad corre hardly coverage, could be lation in maintained that one is other, although than confined more clear-cut boundaries differ meandering may boundaries exist. ences in the By giving

not out. additional se- dropped citizen voting political in other curity the exercise of his and rights, effect, which unless the Classic was the section’s falls, not from him Congress protection case did the take previously (wholly apart prohibition afforded from the deprivation rights different penalties)21 against such on race, servitude, account of previous color or condition of repeal safeguard rights. or the prior of civil strike from rights

To the statute secured the by the Amendment, Fourteenth but at the same time to leave coverage within its area con- the vast bounded other provisions,-would stitutional and contradict both reason history. logic No but one nullifies the historic foundations of the Amendment and sup- the section could port such an emasculation. There judicial should be no cutting work out great rights hack some the the Amend- leaving ment secures in but others. There can be none excising protected all by the Amendment, but leaving

21 opinion The Court’s Classic 20, the case treated this clause of § entirely preceding cf. note as distinct from clauses, stating qualification respect “the alienage, only with to race, color and refers punishment to differences in not deprivations any rights privileges Constitution,” (emphasis added) or secured as was thought grammatical to be evidenced structure of the section practical and “the necessities application provisions.” of its 313 S. 326. U. “pains penalties” provision clearly is against one discrimina- ' qualification not does follow that the alienage,

tion. It as to color and “deprivation also rights does not refer to the privileges” face clause, though not exclusive an sense. No authority for con- trary- History dictum was cited. here would seem outweigh since, grammar, originally appeared doubtful 20 § the Civil Rights Act, qualification as to “color or race” (alienage was clearly later)- applicable added seems prohibition. to its entire Al- though exclusively section statute, a discrimination it would light clearly, history, seem its to include discrimination for alienage, among or race prohibited color per- modes of depriving privileges. sons

125 given by every intact under the Constitution other aegis. statute's applies equal force of 20

All has been said firmly litigious history, had earlier more It an ap- validity.22 establishing recent has received its It also 22 v. Wad Yarbrough, 651 States (1884); Ex 110 United parte U. S. (1892); Logan States, 144 263 dell, (1884); v. U. United S.U. States, Quarles v. United Butler, (1895); Motes 158 U. S. 532 In re (1915); Mosley, (1900); States v. 238 U. S. 383 United 178 U. S. 458 Lackey, Morris, (1903); United States v. 125 F. 322 States denied, grounds, F. cert. on (1900), F. 952 reversed other 181 U. S. 621. Mosley, supra, text, the Court as is noted in the In States v. United stating question validity, sec- disposed of the

summarily open question.” at 386. constitutionality not 238 U. S. “is to tion’s implied repeal, was concerned with but note 17. The Court Cf. being in the “But 6 antecedent of 19 Enforcement Act] stated: [the § § rights said, protection the all Federal from devoted, we have to as against . . . as conspiracies them Just the Fourteenth Amend- adopted protection with a colored . . was view to the the ment . application the equally important in its to race but has been found to general rights general scope 6 had all, and used words that have a § important begins sweep- . . . section become most The now always act, ing general pres- words were in words. Those and the congressionalinterpretation. them Even inter- gives form if that ent 6, not been pretation would have held correct an indictment under § intimating, interpret past if are far from and we cannot which we present, past we by present cannot allow the so far to affect the general protection deprive of the United citizens States reasonably 19 face most affords.” 238 at 387-388. on its U. S. § added.) dissenting opinion (Emphasis of Mr. Justice Lamar validity. question of the section’s raised no It maintained that Con- protection voting rights had removed gress had included or only rights section, leaving coverage. civil its from the within 238 ü. S. at 390. holding Fourteenth that the Amendment and The cases 19 do not rights involving infractions

apply to of constitutional no state action recognize applicability wrongful often and affirm section’s ac- by infringes tion state officialswhich them: United States v. Cruik- (1876); Hodges shank, States, 542 v. United S. 1 203 U. Powell, (1909), (1906); United States v. 212 S. 564 see also 151 U. F. 126 in the question ambiguity

plication,23 except without equal gave Classic which nevertheless sanction case, counterpart. with its substantive together application, and often and Separately, §§19 our have been woven into fundamental and statu- 20 permanent They place among law. our more tory have legal They safeguarded rights many achievements. apart Among and from ones. privileges political those buttressed, through application either direct general conspiracy (18 88),24 37 C. statute, § TJ. are S. trial, including fair freedom from sham trials; to be free from arrest and detention methods constitutionally forbidden from extortion of and property methods; confessions; such from extortion of from mob action incited or shared by officers; state from failure to police protection furnish proper and demand; on occasion from interference with religion, the free exercise of free- press, dom the speech freedom assembly;25 648; parte Riggins, dismissed, Ex (1904), 547; 134 F. 404 199 S.U. Sanges, (1891), dismissed, United v. 48 F. 78 writ States of error 144 310; States, v. 109 (1940), U. S. Powe United F. denied, 2d 147 cert. Hall, U. 679. See also United 26 Fed. Cas. States No. 15,282 Mall, (1871); 15,712 States v. Fed. Cas. No. (1871). 25; Cf. authorities cited in notes United States v. Saylor, 322 385. U. S. 24 overlap condemning clearly conspiracies 19 and Sections 37 in rights. latter, apparently, to violate constitutional has been frequently used, any recently, more at rate when civil rather than political rights goes saying are involved. It without in these validity application 37, charging cases the conspiracy of to violate § depends upon 20, validity application the latter’s § infraction rights charged infringed. of the to have been examples involving 25 Recent rights these Culp and other are: v. States, 93; 131 United F. 2d States, Catlette v. United 132 F. 2d 902; Sutherland, Supp. States v. 344; United 37 F. United States v. Trierweiler, Supp. 52 F. 4. In Culp case the court said: “That this section has not 20] [§ vitality lost of its originally since it enacted, is indicated

i-* necessary right is that the to" of the decisions import due itself, process life without deprivation free from by state offi- power law, is, through abuse of state cials, fully rights as other so secured. protected is as aside, teach- experience swept cannot be or its

So much overthrowing great, firmly a annulled, without ing the feared established, has constitutional tradition. Nor uncertainty have attacked arisen. Defendants welter of strenuously. sections, application, or their often and vague complaint they has been made that are too Seldom Objections principally and uncertain. have centered action,” including law” and failure about “state “color of v. United cf. Catlette discharge official by duty, inaction to States, federal 902, strength F. 2d and about the 132 rarely More to reach abuses.26 power particular limiting effect matters, other touched such as mens rea.28 instances, privilege27 and, official occasional opinion that a state . v. ... It is our . . United States Classic law, willfully and who, state law enforcement officer under color of cause, imprisons an inhabitant of the United arrests and without right, extortion, privilege, purpose deprives him of States of the immunity protected the Constitution secured and defined in 52.” 131 States, and commits the offenses United one of involved were also 2d at 98. Fourteenth Amendment F. Trierweiler, supra, case; v. the court and in United States Catlette enjoyment congressional obviously, purpose, is to assure “The said: Amendment, includ- rights of defined the Fourteenth citizens any person life, liberty, deprive ing mandate that no state shall . Supp. .” F. . 52 at 5. property process due of law without alleged Buntin, 730, involved discrimination States v. 10 F. United right public school. In denying the to attend for race in 926, judge, Supp. court ruled that a state Chaplin, 54 F. States v. prosecution judicial capacity, under acting in his is immune to 37§ violating Virginia, parte 100 U. S. 339. 20. But cf. Ex 26 objections, notwithstanding perennial uni been These have political rejection involving with both interference form cases rights. 22 and 25. Cf. cited in notes civil the authorities 27 Chaplin, (see Supp. F. note 25 Compare United States Virginia, supra), parte S. 339. with Ex U. Buntin, States v. 10 F. Cf. United accused officialshave little used In this wealth of attack all ambiguity. omission, like the Court’s the shield of case, have rejection in the cannot been inadvertent. Classic apart teaching from the it, There are valid reasons for old has foreclosed. that the matter been generality simply One is that the of the section’s terms unconstitutional, worked a hazard of has not out to be serious, proportions. even It not proved has a source of practical difficulty. In way no other can be explained the paucity objection’s appearance the wealth of others made. If experience law, is the life of the as has said, been this has been true in the preeminently applica- tion of 19 and 20. §§

Moreover, statutory specificity two purposes, has to give due notice that an act has been made criminal before it is done and inform one accused of the nature of the charged, may offense so that he adequately prepare and make his certainly defense. More than this the Consti- require. tution not does Cf. Amend. VI. All difficulty on the latter score vanishes, under the indict- particularization ment’s of the rights infringed and the If infringing acts them. it is not sufficient in either re- spect, these in other as cases the motion quash one for a bill of particulars is at the disposal. defendant’s The decided cases demonstrate that persons accused little difficulty had or no to ascertain the rights they have charged been with transgressing or transgres- the acts of sion.29 So it was with the defendants in this case. They puzzled were not to know for they what indicted, were their proof and their defense upon conclusively the law They simply show. misconceived victim that the had no federal what had done was a crime penalize.30 the federal power within That kind of error relieves no one from penalty. 7, 10, Cf. authorities cited in notes 30Cf. Part III.

129 answers, aspect specificity, apart two In the other 19, 20, are suffice. One is that and experience, from Amendment vague, general more Fourteenth no commonly criminal statutes included, than other objection. The Act is Sherman against enforced illustration.31 most obvious men vagueness, warn

Furthermore, argument ignores criminal act conduct, the nature of their given Section necessarily from this. itself and the notice by official state only at abuse of functions 20 strikes inmen by not reach out for crimes done It does officers. but murder officers per se, murder state general. Not conduct with the aid in official and done the course of facts, These inherent in the is outlawed. power, of state warning constitutionally required. For give all the crime, far in can situated, goes who so misconduct so one, ignorance. no of innocence excuse something know

Generally officials of the in- state rights. not, should, If do legal they they basic dividual’s duty they assume when assume their office. It Ignorance general. of the law is no excuse for men special duty it, for men whose is apply an excuse less knowledge to know and observe it. If their and therefore comprehensive, officials know or should know is not state pass authority, the limits of their so far at when they judgment exceeds honest error of rate that their action of their office and and amounts to abuse its function. dealing they enter such a domain with the cit- When rights, they peril, izen’s should do so at their whether that 31 Compare upheld in v. New Chaplinsky Hampshire, the statutes 19, 573-574; 23-28; States, 568, v. 312 U. S. S. 315 U. Gorin 274; 270, v. Minnesota v. Probate S. Court, Old Dearborn U. Co. v. Superior 183, 196; S. Seagram Corp., Petroleum 299 U. Bandini Co. 18; Whitney 360, California, 8, 357, v. 284 U. S. U. Court, 277-278; 368-369; 273, United States v. Fox S.U. Washington, S.U. 393-395. Keitel, 211 their federal law. For sworn oath

be created state or Constitution, duty uphold their first are to then only law the which too is bound the charter. state think, only I statute, something condemns Since judgment, more than error of made honest effort at once v. Mur cf. United States apply law, to follow the dock, officials who violate must act disregard rights intentional or reckless of individual ignorant they wrong.32 great being cannot be do This they peril incurring must be taken to act at of true, placed upon by law, conduct penalty such federal as imposes. they of that the state do supplies requires has been said all to What the case be If question on the of criminal intent. the criminal decided limited, I think it must be in- act is and the statute rights, including infraction of constitutional tends, to rights Amendment, by secured the Fourteenth conduct place of which amounts to abuse one's official or reckless disregard duty, placed no undue hazard or burden can be seeking on state officials to honestly perform rightful functions of their greater office. Others are not entitled to protection.

But, said, penumbra may it is of rights be involved, which none can know been until decision has made and may infraction occur it before is had. It seems doubtful be in any this could true case involving the abuse of official function which the if requires and, statute it could, that guilty one such an abuse immunity should have Furthermore, that reason. the doubtful character of the implied “willfully” 32 1think all this if would had not been be added original pur to 20 amendment. The addition but reinforces the pose. supra. Congress, note 13 legislation, hardly Cf. in this can sought merely punish negligent taken to have conduct honest judgment by grosser state The aim error officials. was at violations supreme of basic and the law. Sensible construction of the language, considerations, requires with other this view. The con application supports sistent course of the it. section’s most invalidate reason at the give could right infringed outlawing the statute or charge, particular com- in advance of narrowly restricting application its occasion. pelling well-established, clear-cut funda- body is a there

For Fourteenth including many secured rights, mental may do sections Amendment, to all of which the creating without specific without enumeration apply, defense. Others uncertainty for conduct or hazards they when category. far, at the least enter that So will question stand without so, sections should have done validity. Beyond this, the character of the act of their implies would necessarily intent it seem and the proscribed requires, all notice the law would-be violators to afford places on their penalty at peril act misconduct. judg- mere case instance of error no

We enough time good faith. It would be made ment, in- conviction, obtained without and remand a reverse along lines, if a case should arise. these such structions given in of such instruction Actually the substance right adequate charge concerning the officer’s wholly When, here, not to excess. a state force, though to use abnega- in place consciously grossly abuses his official tramples obligation, thereby its and under- rightful tion of of men or citi- constitutional foot the established when he had fair should stand has zens, his conviction given in petitioners defense have been and full trial this case.

Ill important highly but considerations must implicit Two definitely. One is the fear grounded more be noticed maladjustment of federal-state rela- possible concern are Enough if and like convictions sustained. tions grounded. fear well been show that the is not has said expressed, exaggerated fear was The same some terms, when highly Act, § the Civil Rights emotional 20, was under in Congress.33 the antecedent of debate history legislation’s gives enforcement no The fear was not realized in support. experience. later enough be Eighty remaining should to remove years vestige. prosecutions The volume of and convictions has small, in importance subject been view the mat- length ter of time and the the statutes been force. apart this, There are from reasons self-restraint of federal officials. prosecuting lies character of

One the criminal act and the proved. A strong intent which must case must be function, made show abuse official therefore to secure indictment or conviction. Trial “by must be an jury of the State and the district impartial wherein the have been committed.” Const., crime shall VI; Amend. Ill, cf. Art. 2. For all practical purposes this means within the state which the accused is an officer. Citi- zens been, state have not and will not be, ready to or convict their local groundless indict officers on charges or in doubtful cases. The sections can be applied effec- only when twelve tively of them concur in a verdict which the prosecuting accords with official’s belief that the ac- cused has violated another’s rights. fundamental A fed- eral official therefore faces both a delicate and a difficult charge when he undertakes to try task a state officer under the terms of 19 and 20: The §§ restraint which has been shown is as much enforced these limitations as it voluntary. has been Flack, Adoption of the Fourteenth 22-38; See Amendment (1908)

Cong. Globe, Cong., Sess., 474-607, 1st 39th 1151 ff. Kentucky repeals Davis said

Senator that “this short bill all the penal . . The the laws' of the . cases . . . . . States. . bill would every bring day up in the United States would be as as numerous the utterly passing minutes. result be would subvert our Gov- Cong. Globe, Cong., Sess., .’(cid:127)’ . 39th 1st ernment . been has not prosecution why are the reasons

These abuse, gross brought only cases been frequent, has prob- or substantial grave no produced therefore has and in state affairs. federal authority interference lem of seri- were more of the case phase problem But if the legally result likely be, has been or is than ous it from the immunity give state officials not could support- Amendment and its liabilities the and obligations imposed. For the verdict have legislation ing Amend- adoption of brought which about struggle contrary. was to the ment deeper ais arguments all the surface

Lying beneath goes them. to federal comprehends It which implication, de- many could not in so words Congress It is power. wrongful intentional crime the a federal nounce as official liberty by life or a state individual’s taking of an to the applying function and of his official in abuse acting pur- This is the ultimate of his office. power deed all is not involved that state action the notions port nation. alone, the state against crime is that the can protect the statute in the idea that also It is reflected encompassed many procedural in his the victim condemnation, but before cannot fair trial to a right others, all right comprehends in the him protect life itself. right to pass if these ideas did not from say that it to

Suffice all, I they did, once and for think American scene more, they Amendment without adoption upon Violation law there may so. of state done since long immunity authority to federal can this no But from be. the Constitution has made it any part where arise state Constitution officials To the supreme. obligation. The power first federal owe themselves

states their malfeasance officewhen strength to reach no lacks If rights. great power, that is a infringes constitutional Amend- and the by the Constitution generated one it is rH co

ments, the states have assented and their officials to which owe prime allegiance.34 deprived

The right liberty by not life or a state it by power officer who takes abuse of his office and its is beyond To secure these not right. such a is federal power. done, history This and 20 in a manner §§19 long since has validated.

Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment.

My I them. convictions are as have stated Were it in possible my vote, me to adhere to them and for the dispose cause, at the same time to I Court would accordingly. Court, act in however, is divided opin- ion. If each member accords his belief, vote to his disposition. case cannot have Stalemate should not pre- any reason, compelling, vail for however in a criminal if or, avoidable, My cause other. views concern- ing appropriate disposition are more nearly accord with by those stated which three Douglas, MR. Justice concur, other members of the Court than are with my dissenting the views of brethren outright who favor Accordingly, disposition reversal. order that may be made case, my of this been vote has cast to reverse the Appeals decision Court and remand the cause to proceedings District Court for further in accordance required disposition with the the opinion of Mr. Douglas. Justice Murpht, Justice dissenting.

Mr. Hall, I dissent. Robert Negro a citizen, has been de- only right prived to be tried a court rather He deprived than ordeal. has been right to life right belonged That itself. to him not because he was a Negro any particular or member of race or creed. That right was his because he was an American citizen, because

34Cf. note 8. all such, was entitled to being. As he he was a human dignity man, befits the and fair treatment respect by the Consti- recognized guaranteed dignity has process of due Yet not even the tution. semblance unjusti- cruelly and him. He been accorded has been acting death officers under fiably police beaten to local It difficult authority is color of derived from state. in- necessary right is to believe that such an obvious and foreign to definitely by the Constitution or is guaranteed any cast police of local officers so as to knowledge 20 of the § doubt on the conviction under reasonable “shocking and perpetrators of the of this Criminal Code episode in law enforcement.” revolting together inas- 20 must be read § The Constitution of the part provisions to certain § much as refers acting under punishes anyone, Section 20 Constitution. any any law, willfully deprives any person of color of who protected by or right, privilege immunity or secured pertinent United States. The or laws of the Constitution is of the Four- part § this instance Constitution Amendment, firmly unmistakably pro- teenth which deprive any person shall of life without vides no state light specific Translated in of this process due of law. 20 thus Amendment, pun- the Fourteenth provision law, willfully of state who anyone, acting under color ishes process life of law. deprives person of without due statutory provision upon which this con- Such is the clear fall. viction must stand or said to lurk issue, however,

A is grave constitutional by § outlawed alleged indefiniteness of the crime in the protected privileges and immunities secured rights, The are by the or laws of Constitution States flexible, dependent upon to be uncertain and claimed so official con- leave a state changeable legal concepts, as to might his run actions of ignorant as to what fused must concluded, statute, afoul of the law. vagueness. set aside that a criminal statute must axiomatic, course,

It is to the which give warning a clear and unmistakable as acts And subject will one criminal courts are punishment. Congress power supply that which has left without if vague. salutary principle But does not mean that vague as to certain criminal acts but definite a statute is must Nor it mean the entire statute fall. does to others involving the statute to come before the first case prohibited all us we must delineate acts that are all explicit. obscure and those that are speculate it is idle to on Thus other situations involve might are not now before us. We are unconcerned here with state officials who coerced a prisoner, from a denied counsel confession to a defendant faulty tax may made assessment. Whatever doubt in other in those or whether the exist situations as to state reasonably anticipate could recognize officials constitutional in relevant is immaterial this case. solely Our attention here is directed to three state officials who, in the of duties, unjusti- course their official fiably body beaten and crushed the being, of human depriving him trial thereby of and of life jury itself. pertinent only inquiry 20, by The is whether its § reference guarantee to the Fourteenth Amendment that no state deprive any person process shall life without due of law, gives warning fair to state officials that are criminally violating liable for this right to life. gives sense an

Common affirmative answer prob- to that The lem. reference 20 to rights protected by the Constitution is manifest simple. At the same time, not right deprived to be life without process due law distinctly is and lucidly protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. There nothing vague or indefinite these references to this basic of all rights. most human Knowledge comprehensive of library law is unnecessary for officers of the law right to know that to murder unrecognized of their duties is the course individuals intelligence or appreciable nation. No amount in this needed state official is conjecture part on the lowliest him to surprise him realize that nor should fact; from persons his protects find the Constitution out punish that statutes disregard reckless of human life and subject punishment him therefor. To a state official him penalize 20 for such acts is not to without under warning. uphold fair and definite Rather it is to elemen- tary decency prin- standards of and to American make mean guarantees and our constitutional ciples law pious more than something rhetoric. unnecessary circumstances it is to send this

Under these assumption back for a further trial on case charged on the matter of the willfulness of jury was officials, an not raised below issue that was the state convincing is more than that the before us. evidence willfully, disregard with wanton or at least officials Hall his life without consequences, deprived Robert A make hardly of law. new trial could process due charge jury on will- evident; more the failure to fact inconsequential Moreover, at most an error. fulness was absence of willfulness fails to decide the presence very 20 is issue raised before us. Section constitutional right to life and certain its reference to definite quite apart in the Fourteenth Amendment spelled out A finding of of mind of the state officials. the state from nothing clarity add to the can that willfulness reference. the real issue say an illusion to that case

It is fully of 20 to warn the state officials alleged failure is the Constitution, illegal. were The and their actions that They knew that them that. own consciences told their life human authority mandate or to take they lacked in the course of of law process without due unnecessarily or excessive and abusive They knew that their their duties. justice. authority only subvert the ends of would use of rather, enforce- is whether law significant question, authority with shall be ment officers and those entrusted clear constitutional impunity allowed to violate the friendless. Too often rights of the inarticulate and Negroes, are find minorities, as unable to unpopular such bigoted and ruthless refuge effective from the cruelties of undoubtedly authority. capable punishing are States outrages. where, But their officers who commit such unwilling prosecute for some reason to here, the are states step must unless government such crimes the federal atrophied. are to become guarantees constitutional intervention, however, will if necessary be futile This crim- disregard reality principle and misuse the courts Here be clear definite. state officers inal statutes must and plain with reckless abandon a constitutional have violated The two courts right of an citizen. below have American trial was fair found the record demonstrates unmistakably guilt clear. And § and the evidence of there- officers. We should outlaws such actions state judgment. affirm the fore Frankfurter Roberts,

MR. Justice Mr. Justice dissenting. Jackson, Mr. Justice county Georgia, Three law enforcement officers of a city sheriff, special deputy policeman, and a arrested a crime, stealing Negro charged with a local young custody handcuffed, While he was their tire. he This mis- severely the lad that died. brutal so beat law man- guilty rendered these lawless officers conduct Georgia if murder, not of under Instead slaughter, law.. leaving by Georgia law, vindication this misdeed to insti- Georgia’s responsibility by United States deflected But this was a criminal tuting prosecution. a federal law. The United only Georgia under States homicide' In- life. prosecute taking petitioners could 139 prosecution stead a brought, was and the conviction now under obtained, review was § under 20 the Criminal Code, 18 U. originating S. C. 20, § Section Rights Civil Act of April 9, 27, 1866, Stat. on the put May 1870, statute books on for but all purposes it practical has remained all these a dead letter years. provides This “Whoever, section under color any law, statute, will- ordinance, regulation, custom, or fully subjects . any . . inhabitant any State ...

the deprivation any or rights, privileges, immunities protected secured or by the Constitution and laws of the United States . . thou- . shall be fined more than one dollars, sand imprisoned not more than one or year, Under U. Code, both.” 37 of the Criminal S. C. § conspiracy punishable to commit federal offense is for by imprisonment years. theory pros- two The of this charged ecution is one with crime entitled to due process right of law and that to an includes the of which orderly petitioners Negro. trial deprived Of petitioners punishable. course the are The only Georgia whether power duty issue is alone has the whether punish, patently this local crime can be made prosecution. practical ques- the basis of a federal whether tion is the States should be relieved from re- bring homicide, their law officers to book for sponsibility federal by allowing prosecutions courts for a rela- tively carrying legal minor offense a short sentence. The whether, purpose accomplishing question is hitherto responsibility, prin- relaxation of State settled protection for the of civil liberties shall be ciples bent and tortured.

I slavery Thirteenth Amendment By the was abolished. equality In order to of treatment eman- secure adopted Fourteenth Amendment was at the cipated, the To be the latter Amendment sure, same time. has been confined to instances of discrimination because of Undoubtedly, however, or the necessary pro- race color. the new freedmen im- powerful tection of was the most part behind the Fourteenth pulse Amendment. The vital Amendment, 1,§ of that reads as follows: “All born persons States, or naturalized the United and subject jurisdiction thereof, to the are the citizens of United States and of the State wherein No they reside. or any abridge State shall make enforce law which shall privileges the of immunities citizens 'of the United States; deprive life, nor shall State lib- any person of erty, property, process without due nor law; deny of any person jurisdiction within equal protection its the laws.”

By itself, merely Amendment an instrument for striking by down action the States defiance of it. It rights not create obligations actively does enforceable by federal law. like all However, by secured Constitution of the United those States, created Fourteenth Amendment could be by appropriate enforced legislation. general power federal Congress to pass effectuating measures given by I, Constitution is Art. Necessary-and-Proper cl. 18—the In Clause. order to importance enforcing indicate guarantees fifth XIV, Amendment its section specifically provides: Congress “The shall power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, provisions of this article.”

Accordingly, Congress passed various measures for its history enforcement. It is familiar that much leg- of this vengeful spirit islation was born of that which to no small degree envenomed Reconstruction era. Legislative respect for constitutional limitations was not at height its Congress passed clearly laws unconstitutional. See Cases, Civil Rights 3. U. S. One the laws of this period was the Act of May 1870, 16 Stat. In its present form, as 20, it is now here for the first time on full consideration as to its meaning and its constitution- ality, unembarrassed preoccupation part both on the counsel and Court with compelling the more issue of the power Congress to control State procedure for the elec- tion of federal officers. If 20 legisla- § were read other read, tion is by giving meaning it the language which its in its proper setting naturally spontaneously yields, it is difficult to believe there would be real doubt proper about signifi- construction. The unstrained cance of the words chosen Congress, pur- the disclosed pose they for which were chosen and to which were limited, always the implications relevant of our federal system especially respon- the power distribution of sibility for the enforcement of criminal the law as between converge the States and the National Government, all to plain by make what Congress conduct outlawed the Act of 1870 and what impliedly did not.

The Fourteenth prohibited Amendment a State from so acting deprive rights as to of new persons federal defined specifically it. Section 5 the Amendment authorized of enabling legislation Since prohibition. to enforce a only through officers, Congress provided can act its State prosecution deprives the officer who of for others the guaranteed rights their and denied such an officer by claiming authority to defend the the State right can short, Congress In said his action. that no State acts which an officer to commit the Constitution empower authorizing, from whether such un- forbade the State given command be for the State its authorized voice, contradicting judicial custom legislative Nashville, L. R. law. C. & St. Co. v. the written See present 369. The Browning, prosecution claim based on an officer’s that for which the is not punishment States seeks his was commanded or the by the law of his State. On contrary, authorized theory that based on the is present prosecution the officer to Congress it a federal offense a State made his asked to law State. are explicit violate the We to effectuate legislation which intended construe defiance the Constitu- against States for prohibitions duly tion, applicable obeys to where State equally an flouts law and Constitution, the but officer State the subject punishment by State for unquestionably to his disobedience. merely normal disregards to not func-

So read § It fails language express appropriately. tion of ideas merely province leave to States local proper political balance of enforcement, crime both, It requires. federalism our does heedless forces clearly during even Congressional purpose, evinced days, to leave undisturbed the feverish Reconstruction enforce power duty of the States to their punish- by restricting authority criminal federal law only persons ment who violate federal under of those authority federal by exerting of State and not au- claim thority against authority. offenders of State Such a dis- against power tortion of devised recalcitrant federal State authority proponents never entered the minds of the legislation.

Indeed, indicate weightiest we have evidence to that now, rejected seventy-five that which after they years, urges. 20 of the Criminal Code Government Section 14 Rights of the from Civil Act Stat. derived During section, 27. the debate on that Senator Trum- bull, the Judiciary Committee, of the Senate Chairman concerning answered fears the loose inclusiveness of the In particular, of law.” phrase opponents “color Act were troubled lest it would make criminals of State carrying for judges legal and officials out their duties. agreed they would if guilty Trumbull Senator they consciously helped discriminatory to enforce State law, Trumbull, was legislation. replied Federal Senator those, against only who were those, directed against by because punishable precisely State law not acted by law to unconstitutional State State obedience “If justified their Said Senator Trumbull, law action. person simply against an a colored offense is committed the law colored, State affords because he is in a where white, as if were this act protection him the same he to anything neither nor was to have do with intended has adequate remedies the State case, his because he has courts; against if he discriminated under color of but necessary colored, laws he is then it becomes because State protection.” Globe, Cong., to his Cong. 39th interfere And Sess., p. language applies equally 1st this to 31, 1870, Act May (now § 17 Stat. Code), the Criminal reenacted the § 20 of Civil which Rights Act. legislation was to attempted depri-

That this confined rights by and was vations of State law not extended federal officials,1 its by of State law is likewise con- breaches Sherman, Senator another lead- firmed observations of about ing Reconstruction asked statesman. When Negro’s right Act to applicability of the 1870 to vote provided law right, when Senator Sherman State dealing. “That is the case are replied, with which we propose present I an amendment a question intend to only proposes kind. bill to deal This with offenses persons color of existing officers or under committed existing law, under color of State constitutions. No State under reported be convicted bill man could this right denial of the Judiciary Committee unless pretense regulation. done under color of State vote My that. from bill honorable friend The whole shows bill if has not read with his usual care he California whole of through runs the pro- see that that does not bill, the first and second sections of the visions for simply punish well discrimina- persons officers as tion constitutions; under color of State laws or and so provides all the way through.” Cong. Globe, Cong., 41st p. 2d Sess., Congress 3663. The debates are barren any legislation supporters indication that the the now authorizing before us had the remotest notion the National prosecute Government State officers for con- duct which their had State made a offense where the State settled custom of did the State not run counter to formu- lated law.

Were it otherwise it would It surprising. indeed give was natural to the shelter of the Constitution to those rights basic human for the vindication which the suc cessful long conduct the Civil War was the end of a proc ess. the authority And extension federal so as to guard against by State newly evasion of these created federal an corollary. was obvious But to attribute Congress overnight the making revolutionary change of a political the balance of the relations between Na tional Government and the without reason, States ais And to very thing. provided different take National Government over the administration of justice from the criminal States to the extent of making every policeman act of lawless on the beat inor house, way degree station whether third illegal ransacking (see evidence man's house Gouled v. States, 298; Byars States, 255 U. S. v. United 28; Mississippi, Brown v. S. 278; U. U. Chambers Florida, 227), a federal offense, would have revolutionary break with past constituted overnight. for such a dislocation in The desire our federal system Lyman plainly contemplated Trumbulls Shermans, and the not even John Thaddeus Stevenses. maintaining the

Regard for delicate balance “between the Union judicial tribunals of and of the States” the enforcement of the criminal law has informed this “in Court, Congress, recognition as has influenced fact public good requires that the that those relations be disturbed by unnecessary conflict between cohrts equally guard bound to and protect by secured Ex parte Royall, Constitution.” 241, 251. Ob- servance of this basic principle system under our of Gov- ernment has led this Court to abstain, even under more tempting circumstances than those from here, now need- less extension authority of federal criminal into matters that normally are of State concern and for which the States charged had best be with responsibility.

We have reference §to 33 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U. S. provision §C. 76. That gives right of removal to a federal court of any prosecution criminal begun in against a State court a revenue officer of the “on any States account of act done under color of his office or any such law.” Where a State [revenue] manslaughter prosecution for resisted the claim that what was done justifiably was done aby United States suppose officer one would this Court would be alert very broadly to construe “under color of his office or law” order to avoid such the hazards trial, whether through conscious or unconscious discrimination or hos- States tility, of United officer accused of homicide and to him in presumably assure a trial more impartial federal But long ago this indicated Court that misuse of court.. authority federal does not come within the statute’s Davis, protection. Tennessee v. U. S. 261-262. Court in recently, More a series of cases unanimously petition insisted that a for removal must show with par- ticularity the offense which the prosecut- State is ing discharge from a duty. resulted of federal “It must appear that the prosecution him, for whatever offense, arisen has out of the acts done himby under color of federal authority law, enforcement of federal that it possibility exclude averment direct

he must his justified by of his not on or conduct acts based is that The defense he is make duty. . federal . . what State, because immunity punishment from his federal duty under justified by law, he did was his prosecution which the nothing he else on did because (No. Maryland Soper 1), 270 U. S. based.” could be Soper (No. 2), 36; 270 U. S. Maryland And see 33. v. (No. 44; Colorado 3), 270 U. S. Maryland Soper v. a suggestion To the such Symes, 286 S. 510. v. U. the removal statute enacted for of limited construction officers would restrict of the United States protection if effectiveness, Congress the answer was that chose to its greater and to withdraw from the protection even afford in their law right duty to enforce criminal States express more courts, specifi it should its desire their own (No. 36, Maryland Soper 2), 42, v. cally. in binding situation now That answer should us. before give led Court

The reasons which such a re- the removal are even more com- scope tricted statute policies The matter concerns inherent pelling as to 20. consequences system in federal undesirable our which prosecution obviously federal are crimes matter crimes no how much predominantly sophisti- State argumentation may give them the appearance cated Congress a contrary crimes. not expressed federal has its language legislation by any- either purpose, in the environment lan- thing of which its appearing out government guage practice seventy- came. against it. years speaks Nor is there body five likewise a judicial opinion which bids find in the unbridled ex- us officer, constituting cess of a State a crime under State his “under law, taken color of law” action federal law which forbids.

Only reported cases two considered 20 before United 299, In Classic, U. States v. Bun- States United v. statute, in tin, teacher, reliance on a State F. child, while United admittance to colored refused who Stone, acted supervisors F. election States v. law to act “under Maryland election were held under a patent there a viola- In neither case was color of law.” justification attempt an at of State but rather tion law Classic, supra, is the State law. United under States In that pri- case only way. decision that looks other have acted “under mary election were held to officials though the as a complained of law” acts color even condemned Louisiana law. federal offense were likewise The truth of the matter is the focus of attention but present the Classic case was not our was the problem, primaries protection of the electoral proc- relation States Constitution. The ess under views reached ought the Classic case thus not to stand the merits way question of a decision on of a has fully for the first time been and its explored implica- now workings for the of our federal system tions been revealed. adequately was assumed quite needlessly

It the Classic case that scope of 20 was with the coextensive Fourteenth Amendment. Because the the case weight of was else- did where, pursue we the difference between power Congress “any to that Amendment to bar granted depriving persons newly from created con- State” Congress and the limited extent to which stitutional in what 20, by making is now power, exercised acting any “under of offense one color law” de- an rights. It well may another of such constitutional prive Congress within could, the bounds of the Four- be that treat action taken a State Amendment, teenth official of State law and not though defiance condoned even authority as of “a State the action State.” It ultimate satisfactorily how a explained been State can never has liberty property deprive person without be said process due of law when the foundation of the claim is disobeyed that a minor official has the authentic command Raymond Co., of his State. See Chicago v. Traction 20, 40, 41. Although U. S. action taken under such circum has been deemed deprivation stances to be by a “State” rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment for federal purposes jurisdiction, the doctrine has had a fluctuating and dubious history. Compare Barney City v. York, New Raymond Chicago v. Co., Memphis Traction supra; v. Cumberland Telephone Co., 218 U. S. with Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 Barney U. City York, S. 278. v. New supra, which otherwise, although ruled questioned, has been See, instance, never overruled. Iowa-Des Moines Bennett, Bank v. 284 U. 239, 246-247, and Snowden v. Hughes, 321 1, 13.1 U. S. assuming

But unreservedly that conduct such as that us, before perpetrated now by State in flagrant officers law, of State may defiance be attributed State under Fourteenth Amendment, this does not make it action any under “color of law.” Section 20 is much narrower power than the Congress. Even though Congress might swept within the federal criminal law action that could be deemed within the vast reach of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress did not do so. The presuppositions federal system, pronouncements of our of the states- shaped men who legislation, and the meaning normal language powerfully against counsel attributing to Con- gress sphere intrusion into the of criminal law tradition- Bennett, supra, Iowa-Des Moines Bank illustrates the situation no complained where there can be doubt action of was the action of a That case came here State. from a State court as the authenticating alleged illegal ultimate voice of State law action Cases of which Lane Wilson, as the law of the State. S.U. is an illustration are also to be differentiated. In that case election illegally against Negroes officials discriminated not in defiance of a authority. State statute but under its ally naturally alone. When reserved for the States account is taken that have here- due considerations between political legal tofore controlled the relations Government, States and there is not the National slightest things torturing warrant for reason of acting language plainly designed nullifying a claim of a State law that with the under conflicts Constitution so apply conformity as to to situations where State law is with the Constitution and local misconduct is in undis- violation of that law. In the absence clear puted State by Congress direction we should leave to the States the law, enforcement of their criminal relieve not States responsibility for vindicating wrongdoing law essentially local or weaken the habits of local enforce- by tempting authority ment reliance on federal for an unpleasant task of local enforcement. occasional

I—I W-1 then, attempt bring In our the Government s an view unjustifiable Georgia peace homicide local officers within the defined limits of the federal Criminal Code clear the first the legal requirement cannot hurdle of charged which these are doing officers must be Georgia law. done under color majority of the Court

Since do not share this con- Georgia the action of the peace viction that officers was law, we, perpetrated too, under color of must consider constitutionality All of 20. but two members of agree that apparently purports Court insofar as subject punishment men to crime it fails to define what is made criminal. As misuse of the conduct criminal machinery is one of the most familiar potent and instru- arbitrary government, proper regard ments of for the rational in criminal requirement of definiteness statutes is basic to civil liberties. As such it is included the con- guaranty stitutional process due of law. But four plain of the Court are of the opinion members in criminal stat- constitutional of definiteness principle scheme of consti- may replaced by utes be an elaborate Congress has not exegesis that which whereby tutional time, vary- from time to the courts can define defined that, decisions, and ing and in the conflicting definiteness may conduct become any event, range an undefined is if conduct sufficiently only definite such undefined “willfully.” committed rights,

In subjecting punishment “deprivation the Con- privileges, protected by or or immunities secured States,” 20 on its face § stitution and laws the United range of deprivation criminal of the whole unde- makes scope Such is the true appeals fined to the Constitution. Its domain unbounded and conduct. is forbidden indefinite. must therefore too Criminal statutes specific more or contours. none. less This has “right” deprivation suggest To the of which is specific been made by by criminal “has either § made the express terms of Constitution decisions in hardly beyond adds terpreting it” definiteness provision statute’s own terms. What is deemed to be “by express terms the Constitution” and “specific” If the “specific”? safeguard what not First Amendment ing free speech “specific” provision, what about the Fourth? “All unreasonable searches and seizures are Amendment.” Na absolutely forbidden Fourth States, v. U. thanson Surely 46. each immunities among “rights, privileges, secured or deprivation of which protected Constitution,” is a In what are criteria any event, crime under express provisions of by which to determine what “specific” provisions are and what are Constitution “specific”? And if the terms of 20 and of themselves lacking sufficient for a criminal statute, are definiteness within the framework of interpret- restriction “decisions

Ol necessary definite- cannot show the ing” the Constitution opinion in the Court’s given The illustrations ness. the doubts vagueness due to inescapable “underline the interpreting character of decisions fluctuating Constitution. surely vagueness §

This the terms intrinsic applicable only by making cannot be removed the statute bad “requisite purpose.” where the defendant the has saying amount to that the black heart of the Does that not him to know what are the constitu- defendant enables rights deprivation forbids, of which the statute tional although not to define their judges 'we as are able classes limits, or, least, prepared or their at are to state what not say be protects aré unless it to whatever § rights protects? the Constitution proposed

Under the construction in order for for a § convict, necessary it would be jury peti- “to find that purpose deprive had the prisoner tioners the of a con- right, g. fight e. the by stitutional to be tried a court by question rather than ordeal.” There is no that Con- gress provide penalty against could deprivation a by “acting under any right State officials color of law” of “the by to be a court rather by tried than ordeal.” But we problem cannot restrict the raised 20 to validity § deprivation penalizing specific a of this constitutional right. dealing We are the reach statute, particularized has not as the Congress Court now par- transforming interpolation Such ticularizes. is not inter- recognized And that is pretation. by the just sentence namely, jury quoted, order to convict under 20 must find that an accused “had purpose to de- prive” another “of a constitutional right,” giving this right as “e. specific g.,” by way constitutional of illustra- judge tion. Hence a would to define to the jury what deprivation are constitutional which is prohibited legal question If that to which jury court, must take instruction from the at least the possessed trial court must be of the means of knowing range “rights” with sufficient definiteness the that are out helped hardly The court can be “constitutional.” jury determining legal question leaving committed. “willfully” to decide whether act find that It is not conceivable would that this Court satisfy the con- following statute cast terms would requirement stitutional for definiteness: willfully any “Whoever which the Su- commits act depri- find to be a preme Court of the United States shall immunity vation of secured or right, privilege, or protected by imprisoned Constitution shall than, more etc.”

If such a statute would uncertainty, fall for wherein does 20§ as construed by the Court differ and how can it survive?

It early history was settled in our prosecutions that the federal courts could not on any be founded undefined Hudson, body of so-called common law. United States v. 32; 7 Cranch Gooding, States v. Wheat. 460. prosecutions Federal must be founded by on delineation Congress of what is made criminal. To base federal prosecutions on shifting and indeterminate decisions prosecutions courts is to sanction for crimes based on by definitions made courts. This is tantamount to creat- ing a new body of federal criminal common law.

It cannot be often emphasized too that as basic a differ- any ence as between our notions of law and those of legal systems not Anglo-American founded on conceptions of liberty is that crimes must be by defined legislature. legislature does meet requirement not by issuing blank check to courts for their retrospective finding that some act past done comes within contingencies and conflicts inhere in ascertaining the content of the Fourteenth Amendment gradual “the process of

CO lO Davidson New Or- judicial inclusion exclusion. leans, subject Therefore, to criminal conduct punishment may eventually find court scope legal to have been within the or the limitations of a underlying a decision satisfy doctrine is to the vital re- through an of def- quirement appearance definiteness process adjudication initeness in the constitutional every comport student of law knows not to actuality. the Constitution requires What is a definite- legislature, argumentatively ness defined not one through judicial out spelled process which, precisely it process, incompleteness. because is a can avoid A requires subtlety definiteness which much to expound so hardly definite. It novel principle is as is an inadmissible that a statute scope criminal of indefinite can be rendered definite by requiring person “willfully” that a commit what Con- but if gress which, has not defined Congress defined, had constitutionally could be outlawed. Of Congress course deprivation can prohibit of enumerated constitutional Congress if rights. But makes it a crime to deprive an- any right other protected by the Constitution —and that is what 20 does—this Court cannot escape facing deci- sions as to what constitutional are covered § 20 by saying event, whatever are, they must away “willfully.” be taken It not been explained has. how all the considerations unconstitutional vagueness in. early which are laid bare part of the Court’s opin- ion evaporate suggesting that what is otherwise too vaguely “willfully” defined must be committed.

In early the law an undesired event attributable to a particular person punished regardless was of the state of mind of the actor. The rational development of criminal liability requirement added a mental for criminal culp- in ability, except a limited class of not cases here relevant. Balint, United States v. (See 258 U. 250.) That req- in expressed forms is various ingredient mental uisite “willfully” one is which the word statutes, criminal prohibits statute When a criminal common. the most “willfully” never “willfully” done, being from something bringing result conduct or the physical defines merely adds “Willfully” proscribed. is pass of which to re- to criminal prerequisite of mind as a a certain state If act. a statute proscribed for the otherwise sponsibility due-process de- satisfy requirement giving does it if will which, happening, notice of what is cent advance presumably so that men punishment, may be visited happening (see Interna- to avoid opportunity an 216; Kentucky, Co. v. 234 U. S. Collins Harvester tional States Cohen Gro- Kentucky, 634; 234 U. S. v. v. Co., Co., Dairy Cline Frink 274 U. S. 81; cery “willfully” bringing pass such an undefined 445), then sufficiently make it definite event cannot and too uncertain that is “Willfully” doing something ascertainable. forbidden, something sufficiently when is not defined requisite certainty according general conceptions to the sufficiently not rendered definite law, criminal our “willfully.” It is having been done by that unknowable up by it cannot lift itself its of a statute that true also bootstraps. vagueness imply un-

Certainly these considerations of constitutionality Act least until 1909. For was at “willfully” 1909 that word was introduced. not until that addition affords no legislative history of But anybody thought “willfully” whatever that evidence unconstitutionality. added to save statute from Congress Committee of on the Revision of The Joint the Criminal (which sponsored Code) what became Laws indication, for it did not gives propose “willfully”; no such Congress any light House of reports neither shed in neither subject, proposed for the bill House on the charge “willfully” added; speech by anyone no subject; the the any light in on either House sheds bill from “will- Committee, of the Conference report explanation no emerges, gives for first time fully” the to which whatever; the reference we have that only Rec., And (43 Cong. p. 3599). refers opinion Court’s the remark Daniel of unilluminating is an Senator that measure had no responsibility for Virginia, who exchange with an made the remark the course of who the meas- charge of of Heyburn Idaho, who was Senator part alleged an attitude on complained and who of ure because the bill against members to filibuster of Southern legislation. the retention Reconstruction “will- significance of merely All not on the this bears unconstitutionally vague in a fully” presumably otherwise that, purpose for fact It also on the statute. bears dealing with an old statute we constitutionality, are only days, but goes Reconstruction back to the opinions in the this Court Nor can be found support can make definite “willfully” proposition for indefinite. prohibitions otherwise Idaho, 343, Court

In Omaechevarria v. any person having prohibiting an Idaho statute sustained graze “upon charge allowing from them sheep grower.” occupied cattle by any range usually the Due attacked under Process Clause statute was provide for ascertainment of the it failed to “range” determining length what of a boundaries occupation necessary prior a “usual” time is constitute meaning upon attack within the Act. This one rejected following Idaho statute was reasons: range conditions and desirous of

“Men familiar difficulty little observing determining will have the law prohibited by expressions Similar are what is it. common [grazing] of other States. in the criminal statutes This presents greater uncertainty difficulty, statute no in facts, than application necessarily varying has been repeatedly sanctioned this court.” 246 U. S. at 348.

Certainly comparison there between a statute is no employing concept range the a western and a statute outlawing range rights, the of constitutional unas- whole certained if not unascertainable. sure, opinion

To be Mr. Justice also Brandéis brought support to its 6314 of Revised Codes of Idaho provided which “In every public crime or offense there joint operation, must exist a of act and union, or intent, negligence.” or criminal merely But this is an Idaho phrasing the conventional saw in text books dealing decisions with criminal law that there must be a rea for In every mens offense. words, guilty other state required of mind is usually punished before one can be an for outlawed act. But the definition of the outlawed act is not derived from mind the state of with which it must be committed. All that Mr. Justice Brandéis meant “indefiniteness” the context of this statute was claim that the give enough statute did not notice as to the act was outlawed. given But notice was by knowledge “range” common of what was, and for good suggested measure he that under the Act a man would have to know grazing sheep that he was where he had no graze business to them. There analogy is no between the this face of Idaho statute and the face of our statute. The essential difference is that the Idaho statute the defined; outlawed act was 20§ it is undefined. Sherman, In Hygrade Provision Co. v. U. S. punished New York the misrepresentation of meat as satisfying religious “kosher” as “orthodox Hebrew re- quirements.” Here, too, objection of indefiniteness rejected by objection was this Court. bordered on In case, too, opinion the frivolous. of the Court, way opinions, as is the softened blow by saying that danger anyone being convicted not was no there him required to have knowing doing, what he was meat “kosher” meat offering that he was consciousness very well it was not. when he knew saying was that the Thus both these cases this Court scrutiny, very although specific, criminal statutes under hazards of expose person did not innocent to the unfair merely legislation did outlaw conviction, because knowledge of conduct, guilty but specifically defined such required. thereby It took criminality defined also Balint, scope of United States v. legislation outside prose- U. in which the Court sustained the act, the wholly knowledge of of cution of one innocent explicitly forbade. commission which the statute of adequate power denying This case does not involve effective passing legis- Congress. difficulty There is no rights against improper protection lation for civil of here is we some- State What are concerned action. society, namely, the avoidance thing basic in a democratic injustice vague conduct terms so prohibiting of the of proscribed what is understanding to make judgment confident even guess-work difficult for too judges highest the land. Court Ill case, in this that State officials who violate By holding, color law, act “under of” State State law nevertheless vast, federal crimes violations of the establishing as Amendment, the Fourteenth this range of undisclosed complicated problems new delicate now creates Court criminal law. The answers the enforcement in view the problems, scope tremendous to these given against Amendment, Fourteenth potential offenses detrimental confusion produce are bound to justice. of criminal administration first recognizes case that “this is Government applied been in which 20 has this Court

brought before by the Fourteenth deprivations secured denied that the Government’s Amendment.” It not potential against would make a offender contention judge a con- any act of State official who as a admitted crime, judge who as a State fession of court last resort admission of a we confession, sustained constitutionally should later hold who as inadmissible, or a public regulatory commissioner issued a order service process which we should later hold denied due or who as a municipal stopped officer conduct we later should hold to be The Due constitutionally protected. Process Clause of the Fourteenth a content Amendment has scope only of which this Court determines as cases come here from time to time and then not without close division position. reversals of Such a dubious construction of a criminal statute should be made language unless compels.

That a pliable such instrument of prosecution is to be recognized feared appears to be the Government. It urges safeguards against three abuse of the powers broad of prosecution for which it (1) contends. Congress, it says, supervise Department’s will policies and curb by withdrawal of excesses funds. It surely is casting an Congress impossible upon burden to expect it to police the propriety prosecutions of by the Department of Justice. oversight Nor would such detailed by Congress make for the effective administration criminal (2) law. The urges Government that, further since prosecutions must be brought in the district where the crime was committed, the judge jurors of that can locality be depended upon protect against to federal interference with State Such law enforcement. suggestion would, for prac- purposes, tical transfer the functions Court, of this adjudicates questions concerning proper relationship between the federal and governments, jurors State to whose function is to resolve factual questions. Moreover,

159 the same subject are to prosecutions if and State federal taking is for need there to see what influences, is difficult all, After hands of the State. out of the the prosecution indicted grand jury federal sitting as a Georgia citizens trial Georgia sitting jury as a federal citizens and other Georgia associates; and it was a and his convicted Screws than against them this charged strongly more who judge have. he should Court thinks gives of Justice us this assur- Department

Finally, moderation: ance of its Justice has established a Department The

“(3) regard prosecutions with to of strict self-limitation policy violations of such rights civil acts. When under Department requires reported, are statutes encourage appro- state officials to take made to efforts be law. To assure consistent ob- action under state priate in the enforcement this civil policy servance statutes, Attorneys all United States have been the Department approval submit cases to instructed to investigations are instituted. prosecutions before brought which have been under prosecutions number No rights statutes is small. statistics are avail- the civil the number of respect prosecutions prior able Rights special Civil Section 1939, when a was established Only during of Justice. two cases Department in the Buntin, United States v. reported: have been period and United States (C. Ohio), D. C. S. Fed. Md.). Stone, (D. Fed. 836 Since the number of annually by Rights received the Civil complaints Section 8,000 14,000, year from but no ranged pros- has under both Sections 20 and its companion ecutions 76. In fiscal statute, year 1943, exceeded for example, investigations alleged 31 full violations Section 20 conducted, brought and three cases were In were to trial. following year fiscal there were 55 such investigations, were instituted in cases. prosecutions

co o of violations are often submitted to

“Complaints officials for by local law who Department enforcement may feel powerless or another themselves one reason under law. It primarily area, take action state is this position wrongdoers namely, where the official has in- unwilling rendered State apparently unable or that the come proceedings, opera- stitute statute has into at Thus, bar, tion. the case Solicitor General Circuit in State of Albany Georgia, which included 42): County, (R. Baker testified 'There has been no com- Bobby filed me in connection with the death of plaint against Screws, Jones, Kelley. Sheriff and Hall As to investigation for depend I of matters that into whom come I am I my Court, attorney, an am I detective and I on evidence that is available come depend after to Court the case . and get into . . sheriffs other peace the community generally get the officers of evidence and attorney I for the state. I rely my act as on sheriffs and peace officers and policemen private citizens also to investigate charges who each other prosecute ” in court.’ lodged are strict “policy But such self-limitation” is not ac- permanent companied by assurance tenure and im- those make it the mortality policy. who Evil men are power; they take it over rarely given from better men to been had entrusted. There can whom it be no doubt shapeless all-embracing statute can serve political dangerous as a instrument intimidation and so coercion hands of those inclined. told local authorities cannot be upon

We are relied courageous prompt action, that often have per- political refusing prosecute. sonal or reasons If it against true significantly be that crimes local law cannot locally prosecuted, sign it is an ominous In indeed. the cure event, reinvigoration is a of State responsi- bility. It not an undue incursion remote federal consequent into debilitation of authority local duties responsibility. local problems law complicated and subtle enforce-

The con- emphasize raised the Court’s decision ment the use to designed 20 was never clusion it has now been fashioned. Government admits punishment leave the of such crimes appropriate it is Regard to local authorities. for this as this wisdom by Congress relations was left to execu- federal-State is, convinced, discretion. It we are embodied in the tive itself. statute

JEWELL RIDGE COAL CORPORATION LOCAL MINE OF AMERICA NO. UNITED WORKERS et a l. May 7, Argued 721. March 1945. Decided

No. notes and 10. And see Neal v. Q. Rights Chicago, v. Cases, 3, 15-18; B. & R. Co. Chi Civil 109 U. S. Chicago Raymond Co., 207 cago, Traction 226, 233-234; v. U. Young, 123; parte Home Tel. & Tel. 20, 35-37; U. S. Ex Co.

Case Details

Case Name: Screws v. United States

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: May 7, 1945

Citation: 325 U.S. 91

Docket Number: 42

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS