CIVIL RIGHTS

CIVIL RIGHTS

Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.
The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. Civil rights protected by the Constitution include FREEDOM OF SPEECH and
freedom from certain types of discrimination.
Not all types of discrimination are unlawful,
and most of an individual’s personal choices are
protected by the freedoms to choose personal
associates; to express himself or herself; and to
preserve personal privacy. Civil rights legislation
comes into play when the practice of personal
preferences and prejudices of an individual, a
business entity, or a government interferes with
the protected rights of others. The various civil
rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate
on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age,
handicap, or national origin. Discrimination
that interferes with VOTING RIGHTS and equality
of opportunity in education, employment, and
housing is unlawful.

The term PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES is
related to civil rights. Privileges and immunities
encompass all rights of individuals that relate to
people, places, and real and PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Privileges include all of the legal benefits
of living in the United States, such as the freedom
to sell land, draft a will, or obtain a
DIVORCE. Immunities are the protections
afforded by law that prevent the government or
other people from hindering another’s enjoyment
of his or her life, such as the right to be free
from illegal SEARCHES AND SEIZURES and the
freedom to practice religion without government
persecution. The Privileges and Immunities
Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution
states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled
to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens
in the several States.” The clause is designed to
prevent each state from discriminating against
the people in other states in favor of its own
citizens.

The BILL OF RIGHTS, the first ten amendments
to the U.S. Constitution, delineates specific
rights that are reserved for U.S. citizens and
residents. No state can remove or abridge rights
that are guaranteed by the Constitution.
In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in
DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. (19 How.)
393, 15 L. Ed. 691, that the Constitution did not
apply to African Americans because they were
not citizens when the Constitution was written.
After the Civil War, therefore, new laws were
necessary for the purpose of extending civil liberties
to the former slaves.
In 1865, the THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT to
the Constitution was enacted to make SLAVERY
and other forms of INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
unlawful. In addition, Congress was given the
power to enact laws that were necessary to
enforce this new amendment.

The FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, ratified in
1868, provides that every individual who is born
or naturalized in the United States is a citizen
and ensures that a state may not deprive a citizen
or resident of his or her civil rights, including
DUE PROCESS OF LAW and EQUAL PROTECTION
of the laws. Congress is also empowered to enact
laws for the enforcement of these rights.
The Origin of Federal Civil Rights Laws
During the period immediately following
the Civil War, civil rights legislation was originally
enacted by Congress, based upon its power
under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
to pass laws to enforce these rights. The
first two of these laws were based upon the CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT of 1866 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1982), which
had preceded the Fourteenth Amendment.
The first civil rights law guaranteed equal
rights under the law for all people who lived
within the jurisdiction of the United States. The
second guaranteed each citizen an equal right to
own, inherit, rent, purchase, and sell real property
as well as personal property. The third original
civil rights law, the KU KLUX KLAN ACT of
1871 (17 Stat. 13), provided citizens with the
right to bring a civil action for a violation of
protected rights. The fourth law made violation
of such rights a criminal offense.
Subsequent Legislation
Although these initial laws purported to
guarantee the civil rights of all citizens, including
African Americans and other minorities, they were effectively negated for most African-
Americans in the late nineteenth century by the
passage of JIM CROW LAWS, or BLACK CODES, in
the South. These laws made it illegal for African-
Americans to use the same public facilities as
whites, restricted their travel, impeded their
ability to vote, forbade interracial marriage, and
generally relegated them to a legally inferior
position.

In the 1896 landmark case PLESSY V. FERGUSON,
163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256,
the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality
of a Jim Crow law that required the
SEGREGATION, or separation, of the races on
railroad cars. The Court held that the Louisiana
law in question was not a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
as long as the facilities that were provided
for each race were “separate but equal.”This SEPARATE-
BUT-EQUAL doctrine was used to support
other segregation laws applying to public
schools and public facilities.

No significant civil rights legislation was
enacted until many decades later,when the COMMISSION
ON CIVIL RIGHTS was established by
Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42
U.S.C.A. § 1975) to monitor and collect facts
regarding race relations for consideration by
Congress and the president. Congress subsequently
passed the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (42
U.S.C.A. § 1971). The statute guarantees that
qualified voters have the right to register to vote
in any state and that they have the right to sue
any person who prevents them from doing so.
Voters possess this right to sue regardless of
whether the individual who so prevents them is
a state official or merely an individual who acting
as one.

The CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000a et seq.) is the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in the history of the United States. It contains provisions for parity in the use
and enjoyment of public accommodations, facilities, and education, as well as federally
assisted programs and employment. Title VII of that act, which prohibits employment discrimination
based on an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, is regarded as the most inclusive source of employment rights. All employers who have at least 15 employees, including state and local governments and LABOR UNIONS, are subject to its provisions, but it does not apply to the federal government, American Indian tribes, clubs, or religious
organizations.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 (25 U.S.C.A. §
1301 et seq.) proscribes discrimination in the
sale and rental of most U.S. housing. It also prohibits
discrimination in financing arrangements
and extends to agents, brokers, and owners. Both
the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts establish the
right of an injured party to sue and to obtain
damages from any individual who illegally
infringes with a person’s civil rights, conspires to
deprive others of their civil rights, or abuses
either government authority or public office to
accomplish such unlawful acts.
In the area of education, a significant civil
rights milestone was achieved in 1954 with the
U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in BROWN V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct.
686, 98 L. Ed. 873. In Brown, the justices unanimously
rejected the separate-but-equal doctrine
that it had upheld in Plessy. They found that segregating
black and white children in different
public schools violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Segregation,
the Court held, effectively discriminates
against African-American children by promoting
in them a sense of inferiority that limits their
opportunities in life. The Court also required
that school districts desegregate “with all deliberate
speed.” INTEGRATION, or desegregation, of
public schools has been a divisive issue ever
since. In particular, arguments arise over the
practice of busing students a distance to school,
a method that has been used, often by court
order, to create a better racial balance.
The issue of segregation continues to cause
strife. In 2002, Senate Majority Leader TRENT
LOTT (R.-Miss.) suggested during comments at
the 100th birthday party of retired Senator
STROM THURMOND that he was proud that the
state of Mississippi had supported Thurmond in
a presidential bid in 1948. Thurmond had run
on the so-called “Dixiecrat” platform that advocated
segregation. The comments caused a
storm of criticism directed at Lott, and he
resigned as senate majority leader in December
2002.

In employment, COMMON LAW permits an employer or LABOR UNION to discriminate for a valid reason in its relations with employees, unless otherwise provided by federal or state
statute. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) initially restrained discrimination against employees or job applicants who engage in union activities.
Subsequently, the act has been extended through various amendments to prohibit other forms of discrimination, including race and SEX DISCRIMINATION.
In 1963, Congress enacted the
Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 206), which requires that men and women be paid the same wages when they do substantially similar work.
The federal EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION (EEOC) is the initial forum for claims of illegal employment discrimination. It also publishes advisory guidelines that explain or define the law. Many states have agencies or HUMAN RIGHTS commissions that are similar to the EEOC.
The 1980s and Beyond
One result of civil rights legislation is AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION, which is the effort to enforce
race and sex classifications when necessary to
correct past discriminatory patterns. The ordering
of affirmative action requires employers or
labor unions to make concerted efforts to hire
minorities who traditionally have been discouraged
from seeking employment with them. The
basis for affirmative action is that if such efforts
are not made, unlawful discrimination will be
perpetuated.
Affirmative action and other attempts to end
discrimination raise new questions. For example,
have efforts to help minorities and women
begun to infringe on the rights of individuals
outside of those groups, such as white men?
Some argue that affirmative action results in
reverse discrimination, which is prejudice or bias
practiced against a particular person or class of
people in order to remedy a pattern of past discrimination
against another individual or group
of individuals.
Much of the attention on the constitutionality
of affirmative action programs has focused
upon the federal courts of appeals. The most
heated controversy has centered on affirmative
action programs in higher education. The Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Hopwood v. Texas, 78
F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996) held that a program at
the University of Texas School of Law granting
preferences to minorities in admissions decisions
was unconstitutional. This case stirred a
national debate, and several commentators
noted that the percentage of minorities who
were admitted to the school dropped markedly after the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court
allowed the decision to stand when it denied
certioari.
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified
some of the confusion experienced by the lower
federal courts with respect to affirmative action
programs in higher education. In Grutter v.
Bollinger, 539 U.S.___, 123 S. Ct. 2325, ___ L.
Ed. 2d ___ (2003), the Court upheld a practice
by the law school at the University of Michigan
that considered race one of the factors the
school considered when admitting students.
The ruling upheld the decision in BOARD OF
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V.
BAKKE, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d
750 (1978), a controversial decision that had
likewise allowed schools to consider race as a
factor in admissions. In a companion case to
Grutter, however the Court limited the scope of
affirmative action programs of universities
when it struck down Michigan’s undergraduate
admissions policies. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S.
___, 123 S. Ct. 2411, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___ (2003).
Unlike the law school’s admissions policies at
Michigan, the undergraduate admissions
department added a certain number of “points”
to the application of a racial minority. Because
the university added these points automatically
without consideration of the individual applicant,
the Court held that this policy could not
pass constitutional muster.
After President RONALD REAGAN appointed
three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court during
his two presidential terms between 1981 and
1989, the Court proceeded to render more conservative
opinions regarding civil rights. For
example, in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,
491 U.S. 164, 109 S. Ct. 2363, 105 L. Ed. 2d 132
(1989), it addressed the issue of discrimination
in the private sector and held that section 1981
of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 barred only
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION in hiring, and thus not
racial harassment while on the job. Minorityrights
groups were disappointed by the ruling
and saw it as part of a general trend toward making
civil rights violations more difficult to prove.
However, Justice ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, who
wrote the Court’s opinion, stated, “Neither our
words nor our decisions should be interpreted
as signaling one inch of retreat from Congress’s
policy to forbid discrimination in the private, as
well as the public, sphere.”
Less controversial have been developments
in the area of civil rights for handicapped people.
In 1990, President GEORGE H. W. BUSH
signed into law the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) (Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327
[codified in scattered sections of 42, 29, 47
U.S.C.A.] [effective 1992]), which was quickly
hailed as the most significant civil rights legislation
since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA
prohibits discrimination against DISABLED PERSONS
in employment, public accommodations,
transportation, and TELECOMMUNICATIONS.
Referred to as the bill of rights for physically and
mentally disabled citizens—who were estimated
to number 43 million at the time of the act’s passage—
the act supersedes previous state and
local laws and extends protection to any person
with a physical or mental impairment that “substantially
limits one or more of the major life
activities of such individual.”
The act includes many features that are
intended to improve living conditions for those
with disabilities. For example, employers,
providers of public transportation, and private
businesses with public accommodation (such as
theaters, restaurants, hotels, and banks) must
make “reasonable accommodations” for disabled
persons. Often such accommodations
must include wheelchair access. Similarly, all
commuter and intercity trains are required to
have at least one car that is handicapped-accessible,
and telephone companies must provide
relay operators for hearing-impaired individuals
who use special telecommunications devices.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. No.
102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 [codified in scattered
sections of 42, 29, 2 U.S.C.A.]) marked another
important step in civil rights legislation. The act
repudiated several U.S. Supreme Court decisions
on civil rights; granted women and disabled
persons the right to recover money
damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964; and granted congressional employees
the protection of Title VII. Among the high
court’s decisions that were overturned by the
1991 act was Patterson. Section 101 of the act
states that employees may sue for damages experienced
through racial discrimination in hiring,
promotion, dismissal, and all other terms of
employment. The changes in Title VII
employee-discrimination cases entitle plaintiffs
to jury trials and allow them to recover damages
in addition to back pay.
Although many minority groups have made
rapid advances toward recognition of their civil
rights, one group that continues to struggle is the homosexual community. Similar to ethnic
and racial minorities, individuals who identify
themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual
have long been subject to disparate treatment
from the majority. Although GAY AND LESBIAN
RIGHTS groups have made advances toward
changing perceptions in society, challenges in
the courts have been only marginally successful.
Gay and lesbian rights group claimed a victory
in 1996 with the Supreme Court’s decision
in ROMER V. EVANS, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620,
134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996). In that case, a constitutional
amendment in the state of Colorado
prohibited governmental units from passing any
statute, regulation, or ordinance purporting to
protect the rights of homosexuals or bisexuals.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the amendment
violated the Equal Protection Clause
because it explicitly denies a single group protection
under the law.
Although Romer represented one of the first
major victories for gay and lesbian groups, other
decisions have been less favorable. In BOY
SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE, 530 U.S. 640, 120
S. Ct. 2446, 147 L. Ed. 2d 554 (2000), the Court
held that the Boy Scouts could properly exclude
gay boys from their organization based upon the
principle of FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. Due in
large part to their limited success in the courts
and legislatures, gay and lesbian advocates have
focused much of their attention on changing
societal perceptions of homosexual, bisexuals,
and other similar minority groups.
Another issue that has arisen in the courts
with respect to civil rights is the limitations
placed upon SECTION 1983 actions against governmental
officials for violations of constitutional
rights. For instance, in Board of County
Commissioners of Bryan County, Okla. v. Brown,
520 U.S. 397, 117 S. Ct. 12382, 137 L. Ed. 2d 626
(1997), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that a
plaintiff cannot recover in an action under section
1983 under a theory of repondeat superior.
The plaintiff in the case was injured when a
police officer forced her to the ground after a
chase. The officer had been hired by his greatuncle,
a county sheriff, despite the fact that he
had had a number of criminal convictions. The
plaintiff claimed that the sheriff and the county
had shown a reckless indifference toward her
constitutional rights through their hiring practices.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding
that a plaintiff in a Section 1983 action must
prove that a governmental unit, through deliberate
conduct, was a moving force behind the
alleged injury.
Prisoners’ Rights
Lawsuits brought by prisoners to recover
damages for alleged violations of their civil
rights have caused problems in American legal
systems. Many of these cases have involved
alleged violations by prisons or prison officials
against inmates. Although many of these claims
have no valid legal basis, some do, so courts
must determine, among the thousands of cases
that are filed each year, which ones have merit.
In response to these claims, Congress enacted
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 28
U.S.C.A. § 1932 (2003), which requires prisoners
to pay filing fees and restricts the amount of
money damages that prisoners can recover.
Prisoners have prevailed on a variety of
claims, notwithstanding limitations placed upon
their court actions. For example, in Crawford-El
v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 140 L.
Ed. 2d 759 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court
reversed an appellate court decision that had
imposed a higher BURDEN OF PERSUASION on
inmate claims. Similarly, prisoners are periodically
successful in claims that prison officials
have deprived them of constitutional rights,
including due process of law.
However, the majority of claims by inmates
fail. For instance, in Correctional Services Corp. v.
Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 122 S. Ct. 515, 151 L. Ed. 2d
456 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a
plaintiff held in a halfway house that was operated
by a private corporation under a contract
with the federal government could not sue the
corporation. The plaintiff had sought to bring
the case under the rule in Bivens v. Six Unknown
Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct.
1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971) (called a Bivens
action), which allows for suits against federal
officials who have violated the civil rights of
plaintiffs. The Court in Malesko held that Bivens
actions do not apply the to acts of government
agencies or business entities and ruled against
the plaintiff.

FURTHER READINGS
Abraham,Henry J., and Barbara A. Perry. 2003. Freedom and
the Court: Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States.
Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
Hepple, Bob, and Erika M. Szyszczak, eds. 1992. Discrimination:
the Limits of Law. New York: Mansell.
Lewis, Harold S. Jr., and Elizabeth J. Norman. 2001. Civil
Rights Law and Practice. St. Paul,Minn.:West.
Rutland, George H., ed. 2001. Civil Rights in America. Huntington,
N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers.
Shull, Steven H. 1999. American Civil Rights Policy from Truman
to Clinton: the Role of Presidential Leadership.
Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

CROSS-REFERENCES
Civil Rights Acts; Ku Klux Klan Act; Section 1983; Voting
Rights Act of 1965. See also primary documents in “Civil
Rights” section of Appendix.