Joseph P. Bradley's Case Analysis
Frederick Douglass called the Supreme Court’s decision on the 1883 Civil Rights Cases “a concession to race pride, selfishness and meanness that will be received with joy by every upholder of caste in the land”. These cases all involved black patrons denied service at hotels, theaters and train cars suing on the grounds that racial discrimination by such institutions was prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1875. In Justice Joseph P. Bradley’s majority opinion, he argued that this act, which allowed Congress to forbid racial discrimination by businesses of a private nature, was unconstitutional, as the Fourteenth Amendment only endowed states with this power. Although Bradley was known for his support of federal supremacy during his time at
…show more content…
He ruled the provisions of Civil Rights Act of 1875 beyond Congress’s constitutional authority based on Fourteenth Amendment, also known as the State Action doctrine. He argued that the doctrine “does not invest Congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of State legislation, but to provide modes of relief against State legislation,” later writing that “an inspection of the law shows that it makes no reference whatever to any supposed or apprehended violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the part of the States”. This decision is widely criticized for analyzing too literally the language of the amendment and not examining its purpose to ensure blacks equal protection under the law. Throughout Bradley’s opinion, he barely acknowledged the significance of the amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 as a means of ensuring all citizens, despite their race, equal rights and treatment by commercial enterprises. He instead “inspected” and searched for loopholes in the language of the Constitution barring Congress from intervening in the actions of the establishments mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1875. For example, one of his most crucial arguments maintained that the act’s conference of power upon Congress to prohibit legislation by local businesses and individuals in society was “repugnant of the Tenth Amendment” because it extended Congress’s powers beyond those directly delegated to it by the Constitution. He also made the very specific point that, according to the Constitution and previous Supreme Court cases, no federal legislation could be passed extending Congressional authority unless it acted as a remedy to a state law passed “adverse to the rights of
He ruled the provisions of Civil Rights Act of 1875 beyond Congress’s constitutional authority based on Fourteenth Amendment, also known as the State Action doctrine. He argued that the doctrine “does not invest Congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of State legislation, but to provide modes of relief against State legislation,” later writing that “an inspection of the law shows that it makes no reference whatever to any supposed or apprehended violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the part of the States”. This decision is widely criticized for analyzing too literally the language of the amendment and not examining its purpose to ensure blacks equal protection under the law. Throughout Bradley’s opinion, he barely acknowledged the significance of the amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 as a means of ensuring all citizens, despite their race, equal rights and treatment by commercial enterprises. He instead “inspected” and searched for loopholes in the language of the Constitution barring Congress from intervening in the actions of the establishments mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1875. For example, one of his most crucial arguments maintained that the act’s conference of power upon Congress to prohibit legislation by local businesses and individuals in society was “repugnant of the Tenth Amendment” because it extended Congress’s powers beyond those directly delegated to it by the Constitution. He also made the very specific point that, according to the Constitution and previous Supreme Court cases, no federal legislation could be passed extending Congressional authority unless it acted as a remedy to a state law passed “adverse to the rights of