<<  <  >  >>

Page 30

the 14th Amendment, section 1985 (3) of the act allows for

damage awards against anyone depriving "either directly or

indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal

protection of the laws."98   Scott won the claim at both the

district and appellate levels, but Carpenters Local 610

appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided in 1983 that

the act did not apply.  First, the majority held that

Scott had to "prove[ ] that the State is involved in the

conspiracy" to deprive people of their civil rights.99

State and local authorities may not have enforced the law,

but unless they actually participated in the violence, the

majority seemed to say, no civil rights violation

occurred.

The Court also reasoned that the act targeted con-

spiracies aimed at Negroes and their supporters in the

southern states after the Civil War.  The majority claimed

to "find no convincing support in the legislative history

. . . that the provision was intended to reach conspira-

cies motivated by bias towards others on account of their

economic views, status or activities."100

In his dissent, Justice Blackmun held that the Court

had misinterpreted the legislative history of the act.

Section 1985(3) was added to the bill, according to

Blackmun, only after some legislators objected that the

original bill would "extend[ ] federal jurisdiction to

cover [all] common crimes" in the states.101   Speaking to

that potential overreaching of federal authority, then-con-

gressman James Garfield asserted that only rights guaran-

teed by the 14th Amendment were a federal responsibility.

But whenever the states failed, by mere "neglect or

refusal to enforce" the laws equally, Garfield maintained,

Congress was required to act.102   The day after Garfield's

speech, the provisions in today's § 1985(3) were intro-

duced.  Thus, while limiting the reach of federal criminal

jurisdiction in the states, the act was also intended to

address the failure by local officials to enforce civil

rights.

The legislative history also showed, according to

Blackmun, that the act was designed to protect the rights,

not only of Negroes, but also of northerners who had come

to do business in the south.  Citing Rep. William Kelly

(R-Pa.), Blackmun described the "Klan problem" targeted by

the act as "one of Southern resistance to economic migra-

tions of Northerners."103   Blackmun then pointed out that

"Port Arthur, Tex., was a self-professed union town.

Respondents were threatened because of petitioners' view

that nonunion workers were encroaching into an area that

petitioners desired to keep union dominated."104   Blackmun