United States v. Price

Incident Summary & Facts

This was a federal criminal prosecution, not a civil suit, and the facts come from the allegations in two federal indictments. On June 21, 1964, Cecil Ray Price, Deputy Sheriff of Neshoba County, Mississippi, detained Michael Henry Schwerner, James Earl Chaney, and Andrew Goodman in the county jail in Philadelphia, Mississippi. He released them “in the dark of that night.” He then drove down Highway 19 to intercept them, took them out of their car, put them in an official sheriff’s office car, and drove them to a place on an unpaved road.

The indictments alleged that this was part of a plan and conspiracy among 18 defendants: Deputy Price, Sheriff Rainey, Patrolman Willis of the Philadelphia Police Department, and 15 private individuals. The purpose of the release and interception was to “punish” the three men, and the defendants “did wilfully assault, shoot and kill” each of them. The bodies were then taken to the vicinity of an earthen dam construction site about five miles southwest of Philadelphia.

The government charged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (willful deprivation of rights under color of law) and § 241 (conspiracy against rights). On motions to dismiss, the District Court sustained the substantive § 242 counts only against the three officers. It dismissed them as to the 15 private defendants because they were not officers, and it dismissed the § 241 indictment entirely on the theory that § 241 does not reach Fourteenth Amendment rights. The United States appealed directly. The killing alleged was a shooting.

Core Legal Issue

Whether (1) private individuals who willfully participate in joint activity with state officers act “under color” of law for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 242, and (2) 18 U.S.C. § 241 reaches conspiracies to deprive persons of Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights.

The Holding

Yes on both questions. Private persons jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited conduct act “under color” of law, and § 241 covers Fourteenth Amendment rights, including the right not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process. The Court reversed the dismissals and remanded both indictments for trial.

The Court’s Analysis:

• The question was one of statutory construction, not congressional power. Congress may punish deprivations of every right the Due Process Clause guarantees.
• “To act ‘under color’ of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.” State officers took part in “every phase” of the alleged venture: the release from jail, the interception, the assault, and the murder. In the Court’s words, it was “a joint activity, from start to finish.”
• “Under color” of law means the same thing in § 242 as in its civil counterpart, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has been treated as the same as Fourteenth Amendment “state action.”
• On § 241, the Court found the statute’s language “plain and unlimited.” It reaches “all” rights secured by the Constitution and laws. The Reconstruction-era history and Senator Pool’s remarks confirmed that it was meant to cover Fourteenth Amendment rights and conduct by officials, acting alone or with private persons.
• The alleged official participation in murder was “state action” that denied the victims “any trial at all.” The Court quoted precedent that police who “take matters in their own hands” deprive the victim of the right to be tried by a lawful court, “not by a kangaroo court.” (Justice Black concurred except as to reliance on the Williams cases.)