Page XXX
Page XXX
384 U.S. 808, *; 86 S. Ct. 1800, **;
16 L. Ed. 2d 944, ***; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2811
1 of 2 DOCUMENTS
Caution
As of: Feb 05, 2010
CITY OF GREENWOOD v. PEACOCK ET AL.
No. 471
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
384 U.S. 808; 86 S. Ct. 1800; 16 L. Ed. 2d 944; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2811
April 26, 1966, Argued
June 20, 1966, Decided *
* Together with No. 649, Peacock et al. v. City of Greenwood, also on certiorari to the same court.
Page XXX
384 U.S. 808, *; 86 S. Ct. 1800, **;
16 L. Ed. 2d 944, ***; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 2811
PRIOR HISTORY: CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
DISPOSITION: 347 F.2d 679, 986, reversed.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff city sought review of a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed a decision of the district court sustaining plaintiff's motion to remand several defendants' cases which were consolidated and which sought removal to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1443. Plaintiff asserted that the court of appeals erred in reversing the district court's remand order.
OVERVIEW: Defendants were charged with various state criminal charges against individuals engaged in civil rights activity in several counties. Defendants filed petitions seeking to remove their cases to federal district court under 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1443. The district court sustained plaintiff city's motion to remand the cases to the city police court for trial, but the court of appeals reversed, holding that defendants had a good claim for removal under 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1443(1) because defendants had been deprived equal civil rights in that the arrest and the charge were effected for reasons of racial discrimination. Defendants asserted the right to removal under 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1443(1) or alternatively 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1443(2). The court reversed the ruling of the court of appeals, holding that the individual defendants had no right of removal to the federal court under ß 1443 because there was no removal right under ß1443(1), that there were remedies available on appeal if defendants failed to receive a fair trial, and that ß 1443(2) conferred a privilege of removal only upon federal officers for any act under color of such office.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the appeals court's judgment, which in turn had reversed the district court's order sustaining plaintiff city's motion to remand defendants' case to the city police court for trial. The court found that no right to removal to federal court existed where there were remedies available if state court's failed to provide defendants with a fair trial.
CORE TERMS: removal, civil rights, federal officers, federal rights, arrest, federal law, laws providing, civil rights, color of authority, trespass, freedmen, bureau, color, civil rights, prosecuted, present case, imprisonment, assisting, criminal prosecutions, rights of citizens, revenue officers, intimidate, invoked, custom, habeas corpus, arrested, suitable, tribunals, punish, federal statutes
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Governments > State & Territorial Governments > Police Power
[HN1] See Miss. Code Ann. ß 2296.5.
Civil Procedure > Removal > Elements > Federal Venue
Civil Rights Law > Civil Rights Acts > Civil Rights Act of 1964
[HN2] See 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1443.
Civil Rights Law > Voting Rights > Racial Discrimination
Constitutional Law > Equal Protection > Scope of Protection
Constitutional Law > Privileges & Immunities
[HN3] See 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1971(a)(1).
Civil Rights Law > Civil Rights Acts > Civil Rights Act of 1964
[HN4] See 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1971(b).
Civil Procedure > Removal > Elements > Removability
Governments > Federal Government > Claims By & Against
Governments > Federal Government > Employees & Officials
[HN5] All state suits or prosecutions against any officer of the United States or person acting under him, for any act under color of such office may be removed. Many of the cases presently removable under 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1443 (2) would now also be removable under 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1442 (a)(1).
Civil Procedure > Removal > Basis > Cases Involving Federal Officers
Governments > Federal Government > Employees & Officials
[HN6] 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1443 (2) confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights.
Constitutional Law > Bill of Rights > Fundamental Freedoms > Freedom of Speech > Scope of Freedom
Criminal Law & Procedure > Jurisdiction & Venue > Jurisdiction
[HN7] The First Amendment rights of free expression are not rights arising under a law providing for "equal civil rights" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1443(1).
Criminal Law & Procedure > Jurisdiction & Venue > Jurisdiction
[HN8] Under 28 U.S.C.S. ß 1443(1), the vindication of a defendant's federal rights is left to the state courts except in the rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.
Civil Rights Law > Practice & Procedure > Criminal Penalties
Governments > Federal Government > Employees & Officials
Governments > Legislation > Statutory Remedies & Rights
[HN9] Sanctions, civil and criminal, are available in the federal courts against officers of a state who violate a petitioner's federal constitutional and statutory rights. Under 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983 (1964 ed.) the officers may be made to respond in damages not only for violations of rights conferred by federal equal civil rights laws, but for violations of other federal constitutional and statutory rights as well. The provisions of 18 U.S.C.S. ß 241 (1964 ed.), a criminal law that imposes punishment of up to 10 years in prison, may be invoked against those who conspire to deprive any citizen of the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States by causing the arrest of Black persons by means of false reports that such Black persons had committed criminal acts.
Civil Rights Law > Section 1983 Actions > Scope
[HN10] 42 U.S.C.S. ß 1983, entitled "Civil action for deprivation of rights," states: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. .
Civil Rights Law > Civil Rights Acts > Civil Rights Act of 1964
[HN11] See 18 U.S.C.S. ß 241.
Civil Rights Law > Civil Rights Acts > Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Law > Practice & Procedure > Criminal Penalties
[HN12] See 18 U.S.C.S. ß 242.
SUMMARY:
The two instant cases involve petitions by individuals engaged in civil rights activities for removal, under 28 USC 1443(1) and (2), to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi of criminal prosecutions commenced in a Mississippi city police court. In No. 471, where the defendants were charged with obstructing public streets, petitioners alleged that the statute under which they were charged was unconstitutionally vague on its face, that it was unconstitutionally applied to their conduct, and that its application was a part of a policy of racial discrimination fostered by the state of Mississippi and the city involved. In No. 649, the defendants were charged with various offenses, such as assault, disturbing the peace, etc. They alleged that their arrests and prosecutions were for the sole purpose and effect of harassing them and of punishing them for and deterring them from the exercise of their constitutionally protected right to protest the conditions of racial segregation in Mississippi. The District Court remanded the cases to the Police Court, but the Court of Appeals reversed, insofar as the removal petitions were based on 1443(1), and remanded the cases to the District Court for a hearing on the truth of the allegations of the removal petitions. (347 F2d 679; 347 F2d 986.)
On writs of certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. In an opinion by Stewart, J., expressing the views of five members of the Court, it was held that the allegations in the petitions for remand did not support removal (1) under 1443(1), because the requirements of subdivision (1) were not met by allegations that the defendants' federal equal civil rights had been illegally and corruptly denied by state administrative officials in advance of trial, that the charges against the defendants were false, or that the defendant was unable to obtain a fair trial in a particular state court, subdivision (1) being applicable only where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing a defendant to trial in the state court, or (2) under 1443(2), because subdivision (2) is available only to federal officers and to persons assisting such officers in the performance of their official duties.
Douglas, J., joined by Warren, Ch. J., and Brennan and Fortas, JJ., dissented, expressing the view that the allegations of the removal petitions were sufficient to make out a case for removal and that hearings on the truth of these allegations were required.
LAWYERS' EDITION HEADNOTES:
[***LEdHN1]
REMOVAL OF CAUSES ß62
civil rights cases -- construction of 28 USC 1443(2) --
Headnote:[1A][1B]
The provision in 28 USC 1443 (2), which authorizes the removal to the appropriate federal court of a civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a state court for "any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights," is available only to federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights.
[***LEdHN2]
REMOVAL OF CAUSES ß62
STATUTES ß129
civil rights cases -- persons entitled to removal --
Headnote:[2]
The definition of the persons entitled to removal, under 28 USC 1443 (2), of a civil rights case from a state court to the appropriate federal court are to be read in the light of the more expansive language of the statute's ancestor.
[***LEdHN3]
REMOVAL CAUSES ß62
construction of 28 USC 1443(2) --
Headnote:[3A][3B]
The provision in 28 USC 1443 (2), which authorizes the removal to the appropriate federal court of civil actions or criminal prosecutions commenced in a state court for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with any law providing for equal rights, is available only to state officers.
[***LEdHN4]
REMOVAL OF CAUSES ß62
"equal civil rights" --
Headnote:[4]
The First Amendment rights of free expression do not qualify as rights under laws providing for "equal civil rights" within the meaning of 28 USC 1443(1), which authorizes the removal to the appropriate federal court of civil actions or criminal prosecutions commenced in a state court against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the state courts a right under any law providing for "equal civil rights."
[***LEdHN5]
CIVIL RIGHTS ß1
First Amendment rights --
Headnote:[5]
The First Amendment rights of free expression and the precious rights of personal liberty it protects are comprehended in the concept of "civil rights."
[***LEdHN6]
CAUSES ß62
civil rights -- state criminal prosecutions --
Headnote:[6]
Allegations--in a petition to remove to the appropriate federal court state prosecutions for obstructing public streets, assault, disturbing the peace, and other offenses--that defendants were prosecuted because they were Negroes or engaged in helping Negroes assert their rights under federal equal civil rights laws, that they are completely innocent of the charges against them, or that the defendants will be unable to obtain a fair trial in the state court, do not sustain removal of these prosecutions under 28 USC 1443(1), which allows removal only when a person is "denied or cannot enforce" a specific federal right in the courts of the state.
[***LEdHN7]
REMOVAL OF CAUSES ß62
civil rights case -- prerequisites --
Headnote:[7A][7B]
To support removal, under 28 USC 1443(1), authorizing the removal to the appropriate federal court of proceedings commenced in a state court against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such state a right under any law providing for equal civil rights, it is not enough to allege or show that the defendant's federal equal civil rights have been illegally and corruptly denied by state administrative officials in advance of trial, that the charges against the defendant are false, or that the defendant is unable to obtain a fair trial in a particular state court; the vindication of defendant's federal rights is left to the state courts except in the rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.
[***LEdHN8]
REMOVAL OF CAUSES ß62
civil rights cases --
Headnote:[8]
The civil rights removal statute ( 28 USC 1443) does not require and does not permit the judges of the federal courts to put their brethren of the state judiciary on trial.
[***LEdHN9]
CIVIL RIGHTS ß12.5
CIVIL RIGHTS ß13
civil and criminal sanctions --
Headnote:[9]
Persons who are denied the rights guaranteed to them under federal law may vindicate these rights in appropriate cases by various remedies in federal courts, such as direct review by the United States Supreme Court, obtaining an injunction or habeas corpus, bringing suit for damages under 42 USC 1983, or invoking criminal sanctions under 18 USC 241, 242.
[***LEdHN10]
REMOVAL OF CAUSES ß62
civil rights cases --
Headnote:[10]
The provisions of 28 USC 1443 (1), authorizing the removal to the appropriate federal court of civil rights cases commenced in a state court, do not operate to work a wholesale dislocation of the historic relationship between the state and the federal courts in the administration of the criminal law.