Document: 460 U.S. 719 103 S.Ct. 1483 75 L.Ed.2d 413 Frank KUSH, et al., Petitionersv.Kevin RUTLEDGE. No. 81-1675. Argued Jan. 12, 1983. Decided April 4, Syllabus In his action in Federal District Court, and state administrative judicial proceedings, respondent, a white male, asserted variety of common-law statutory claims against Arizona State University certain its officials (including petitioners) arising out incidents occurring while he was member the University's football squad. One that three petitioners had engaged conspiracy to intimidate threaten various potential material witnesses order prevent them from testifying "freely, fully truthfully" action, violation first part 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) (1976 ed., Supp. V). The Court dismissed entire complaint. Appeals, affirming dismissal respondent's remanding as others, reversed with respect claim at issue. court concluded witness intimidation, insofar they related obstruction justice level, were not actionable under second 1985(2)—which prohibits obstruct due course "with intent deny any citizen equal protection laws"—because there no sufficient allegation racial or class-based invidiously discriminatory animus. concluded, however, such an allegation—which held be necessary Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 88, 91 1790, 29 338, avoid creating general federal tort law regard portion 1985(3)—was applicable alleged intimidation courts 1985(2). Held: No allegations animus are required establish cause provisions now codified 1985 originally enacted 2 Civil Rights Act 1871, substantive meaning 1871 has been changed. relating institutions processes Government 1985(2))—unlike those encompassing activity is usually primary concern 1985(3) involved Griffin, supra )—contain language requiring conspirators act deprive their victims laws. Thus, reasoning here, given structure Act, it clear Congress did intend impose requirement on persons seeking prove rights legislative history supports this conclusion. Pp. 724-727. 660 F.2d 1345, affirmed. Michael L. Gallagher, Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioners. Robert Ong Hing, respondent. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 Respondent player unknown political affiliation who seeks recover damages (1976) lawsuit. Petitioners argue must because motivated by kind "racial, perhaps otherwise class-based, animus" we 102, 1798, 338 (1971). We reject contention, critical 1985(3), statute applied conspiracy, does apply case. * issue before us narrow may briefly stated. both tribunals, respondent Rutledge occurred college petitioners—the athletic director, head coach, assistant coach— lawsuit court.1 3 granted motion dismiss complaint grounds barred Eleventh Amendment failed allege civil rights. It shown identifiable class, unsupported specific facts. App. Pet. Cert. A-2. Appeals affirmed all university Board Regents vicarious liability petitioner Miller, remanded further proceedings other state-law petitioners, except one here. 1345 (CA9 1981).2 4 construed see n. 1, supra, containing two components—obstruction interference litigation. former 1985(2),3 held, "there exists animus." Id., 1355. acknowledged Court's decision interpreted include constitutional issues would have attended enactment law. decided same principles based private conspiracies proceedings. 5 But 1985(2), which proscribes courts.4 relied plain history. Noting government's unquestioned authority protect own courts, absence need limit law, declined limitation set forth Breckenridge. Ibid. 6 Because Circuits read more narrowly, Kimble D.J. McDuffy, Inc., 648 340, 346-348 (CA5 1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 1110, 102 687, 70 651 (1981); Jones United States, 536 269, 271 (CA8 1976), 429 1039, 97 735, 50 750 (1977), certiorari limited question construction, --- ----, 3508, 73 1382 (1982). As Courts Columbia Circuit, McCord Bailey, 636 606, 616 (CADC 1980), 451 983, 101 2314, 68 839 (1981), Third Brawer Horowitz, 535 830, 840 (CA3 agree Ninth Circuit's analysis.5 II 7 provision Title States Code 17 Stat. 13. length style reprinted full appendix opinion, make somewhat difficult parse. Nevertheless, if several components carefully identified, becomes clear. 8 Although contained only long paragraph when enacted, single outlawed five broad classes conspiratorial activity. terms, proscribed interfere (a) performance official duties officers; (b) administration courts; (c) (d) enjoyment "equal laws" privileges immunities laws"; (e) right support candidates elections. 1985, divided into subsections. prohibited 1985(1), 1985(3). remedy subsections found end reclassification intended change Act.6 9 Three categories, fifth, relate government—federal officers, 1985(1); 1985(2); elections, dealing these categories contain Nor corresponding portions Act. See Appendix.7 10 remaining encompass underlying institutionally linked interests concern. applies provides "conspire go disguise highway premises another."8 Each contains conspirators' actions 11 This limiting (1971), case unanimous purely conspiracies. explaining why holding create open-ended "to tortious, interferences others," id., 101, S.Ct., 1797, expressly stated, "The protection, immunities, means some racial, behind action. words, aim deprivation secured all." 1798. 12 itself arose clause should well. cannot accept argument reasons. First, scope confined "the us," 99, 1796; also 9. There suggestion 1985. Second, analysis heavily fact sponsors bill added protection" response objections "enormous sweep original language" vastly extended displaced control over conduct. 99-100, 1796-1797. That background prohibit Third, greatest importance, textual basis "class-based, simply appear supra. 13 Given 1985(2).9 conclusion drawn statute. Protection essential component Congress' solution disorder anarchy southern States. Neither proponents nor opponents doubt Constitution gave power parties, witnesses, jurors courts.10 judgment 14 Affirmed. APPENDIX 15 Section (emphasis supplied). 16 "That within Territory shall conspire together overthrow, put down, destroy force government levy war oppose force, threat prevent, hinder, delay execution seize, take, possess property contrary thereof, person accepting office trust place confidence discharging induce officer leave State, district, where might lawfully performed, injure him account lawful discharge office, so molest, interrupt, impede duty, deter party attending court, matter pending fully, freely, truthfully, having testified, influence verdict, presentment, indictment, juror grand indictment assented him, being juror, together, upon public another purpose, either directly indirectly, depriving class laws, purpose preventing hindering constituted authorities giving securing manner impeding, hindering, obstructing, defeating Territory, enforcing entitled vote advocacy towards favor election qualified elector President Vice-President advocacy, each every offending deemed guilty high crime, and, conviction thereof district circuit supreme jurisdiction similar offences, punished fine less than hundred thousand dollars, imprisonment, without hard labor, determine, period six months years, imprisonment determine. And do, done, furtherance object whereby injured property, deprived exercising privilege maintain recovery occasioned injury prosecuted proper subject appeal, review error, remedies provided like cases ninth, eighteen sixty-six, "An rights, furnish vindication." essence described briefs arguments recognized whether "adequately section close question," but affirmative. Under liberal pleading rules Conley Gibson, 355 41, 47-48, 78 102-103, 80 (1957), properly amended raising presented certiorari. Count Five complaint, days after filing intimidated connection proceeding. alleges that: "56. On information belief, since time statutorily mandated Regents, defendants Kush, Miller Horton conspired threat, truthfully matters raised "57. obstructing plaintiff laws threatening intimidating 'cover up' wrongful acts Kush Maskill." E-11 E-12. These describe Regents. ¶ 56 reflects relates infra, whereas 57 closely follows wording provision, 3, infra. 60 then generally violated defendants. Thus can fairly alleging concluded: "On remand wish require appellant amend particular eliminate pertaining section. Nothing action." F.2d, provides: "[O]r defeating, manner, enforcing, attempting enforce, person, persons, . ." added). "If deter, therein, petit Our grant rise recoverable damages. remains open consideration Appeals. When passed legislation 1874 consolidate collect statutes Revised Statutes, 18 113, expressed intention although minor changes made accommodate consolidation. Cf. Pott Arthur, 104 736, 26 L.Ed. 909 (1881). separated version 2. Appendix. For actually separate clauses, reads follows: another, depriving, laws; unpersuaded petitioners' authorization location remedial merely confirms our view informed text. Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. 486 (1871) (remarks Rep. Cook, supporter); 220 Sen. Thurman, opponent). discussed accurately persuasively Circuit 615-617 (1981).

Category: 1