Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 700.0

529US3

Unit: $U54

[10-04-01 09:35:40] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 598 (2000)

625

Opinion of the Court

abundant evidence, however, to show that the Congresses
that enacted the Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1875 had a
purpose similar to that of Congress in enacting § 13981:
There were state laws on the books bespeaking equality of
treatment, but in the administration of these laws there was
discrimination against newly freed slaves. The statement
of Representative Garﬁeld in the House and that of Senator
Sumner in the Senate are representative:

“[T]he chief complaint is not that the laws of the State
are unequal, but that even where the laws are just
and equal on their face, yet, by a systematic mal-
administration of them, or a neglect or refusal to en-
force their provisions, a portion of the people are denied
equal protection under them.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong.,
1st Sess., App. 153 (1871) (statement of Rep. Garﬁeld).
“The Legislature of South Carolina has passed a law
giving precisely the rights contained in your ‘supple-
mentary civil rights bill.’ But such a law remains a
dead letter on her statute-books, because the State
courts, comprised largely of those whom the Senator
wishes to obtain amnesty for, refuse to enforce it.”
Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 2d Sess., 430 (1872) (statement
of Sen. Sumner).

See also, e. g., Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., at 653 (state-
ment of Sen. Osborn); id., at 457 (statement of Rep. Coburn);
id., at App. 78 (statement of Rep. Perry); 2 Cong. Rec. 457
(1874) (statement of Rep. Butler); 3 Cong. Rec. 945 (1875)
(statement of Rep. Lynch).

But even if that distinction were valid, we do not believe
it would save § 13981’s civil remedy. For the remedy is sim-
ply not “corrective in its character, adapted to counter-
act and redress the operation of such prohibited [s]tate
laws or proceedings of [s]tate ofﬁcers.” Civil Rights Cases,
supra, at 18. Or, as we have phrased it in more recent cases,
prophylactic legislation under § 5 must have a “ ‘congru-