IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 694 

Recognizing the importance of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the laws 

derived therefrom. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2019 

Ms. WATERS (for herself, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. GREEN

of Texas, Ms. BASS, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. 

MEEKS, Mr. RUSH, Mr. CLAY, Ms. NORTON, Ms. MOORE, Mrs. WATSON

COLEMAN, Mr. EVANS, Mr. LEWIS, Ms. PRESSLEY, Ms. PLASKETT, Mrs. 

BEATTY, and Ms. FUDGE) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 

and the laws derived therefrom. 

Whereas, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the reunified 

United States of America struggled to reconstruct its 

war-torn States or establish laws granting newly freed 

slaves the same rights afforded to White citizens; 

Whereas the reconstruction of the United States following the 

conclusion of the Civil War necessarily included the integration of newly emancipated African Americans into 

broader society, and with it, their receipt of civil and 

legal protections; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 694 IH 

Whereas, as a response to the uncertain and unequal status 

of newly freed slaves, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified by the States on December 6, 1865, 

formally abolishing slavery ‘‘within the United States, or 

any place subject to their jurisdiction’’; 

Whereas, on April 9, 1866, Congress overrode a Presidential 

veto to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a law written 

to protect and clarify the newly bestowed rights of persons of African descent; 

Whereas the Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that all persons born in the United States are entitled to be citizens, 

without regard to race, color, or previous condition of 

slavery or involuntary servitude; 

Whereas the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted to accomplish three primary objectives: to establish that all persons born in the United States were to be considered citizens, to clearly define the rights guaranteed by American 

citizenship, and to make it unlawful for any person to deprive another of these rights on the basis of race; 

Whereas the Civil Rights Act of 1866 served the role of overriding ‘‘Black Codes’’, laws enacted in southern States to 

restrict African Americans’ freedom and keep formerly 

enslaved persons from thriving in society; 

Whereas section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 created an 

avenue for citizens who fell victim to intentional racial 

discrimination by allowing them go before a Federal 

court and allege that he or she was discriminated against 

while engaging in lawful activity; 

Whereas section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was used 

to challenge the laws established by southern States to 

limit the rights and opportunities of newly freed slaves; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 694 IH 

Whereas under section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 

U.S.C. 1981), as derived from section 16 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 (16 Stat. 140) and section 1 of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1866 (14 Stat. 27), African American 

citizens are given the right to enforce contracts, give evidence in court, sue and be sued, and purchase, sell, and 

convey real and personal property; 

Whereas, in 1975, the Supreme Court found in Johnson v. 

Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454 (1975), that 

section 16 of the Enforcement Act of 1870 (16 Stat. 

140) allowed for private employers to be held accountable 

for discrimination within their ranks; 

Whereas section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

1981) applies to all contracts, including those between 

employer and employee, and has become a vital tool for 

employment discrimination claimants; 

Whereas section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

1981) stands as one of the only laws protecting against 

employers openly discriminating on the basis of race 

when contracting with other parties; 

Whereas it is well established that section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981) has been invoked to 

challenge race discrimination in employment matters and 

has held bad actors accountable for contract discrimination; 

Whereas, in 1989, the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted 

section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981) 

to only apply to contract formation in Patterson v. 

McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164 (1989), finding that 

only certain points in a contractual engagement could be 

subject to the protections afforded in such section; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
4 

•HRES 694 IH 

Whereas the ruling in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 

491 U.S. 164 (1989) functioned as a major setback in 

ensuring that all aspects of an employee or individual’s 

interaction with a business would be free of racial discrimination; 

Whereas, in 1991, Congress disagreed with a plethora of Supreme Court decisions that undermined Federal antidiscrimination laws and challenged the Court’s restrictive 

interpretation of section 1977 of the Revised Statutes 

(42 U.S.C. 1981) in Patterson by statute, as part of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1991; 

Whereas the 2008 decision in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (2008), further determined that 

section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981) 

prohibits not only direct discrimination, but retaliation of 

those alleging discrimination, as well; 

Whereas Congress’ intent is clear through the legislative history of section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

1981), which definitively illustrates the law was meant to 

provide and enforce robust protection against race discrimination in contracting; 

Whereas section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

1981) provides that ‘‘[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction 

of the United States shall have the same right . . . to 

make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white 

citizens.’’ and the statute defines ‘‘make and enforce contracts’’ to ‘‘include the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of 

all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.’’; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
5 

•HRES 694 IH 

Whereas section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

1981) clearly enumerates the protections afforded to minorities in the United States when contracting with businesses and makes clear that all aspects of the creation, 

modification, and termination of contracts are subject to 

the scrutiny of such section; 

Whereas the most direct interpretation of section 1977 of the 

Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981) ensures that all racial 

minorities in the United States be granted the opportunity to enter into contractual agreements free of discrimination; and 

Whereas section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

1981) serves as a critically important tool to ensure no 

person is denied the ability to contract with another on 

the basis of race: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes and honors the historical signifi3 cance of section 1977 of the Revised Statutes (42 

4 U.S.C. 1981), and its instrumental contributions to 

5 our Nation’s pursuit of equal protection for all 

6 Americans; 

7 (2) reaffirms its commitment to the 13th, 14th, 

8 and 15th amendments, to the Civil Rights Act of 

9 1866 (and the laws derived therefrom), and to the 

10 civil rights and liberties of all racial minorities 

11 across the country; and 

12 (3) reaffirms the congressional intent behind 

13 section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (and the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
6 

•HRES 694 IH 

1 laws derived therefrom), which was, and remains 

2 today, the protection of the rights of minorities seek3 ing refuge from racial discrimination in business. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS