Misplaced Pages

Conspiracy against rights

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LilianaUwU (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 16 November 2024 (RS dammit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:43, 16 November 2024 by LilianaUwU (talk | contribs) (RS dammit)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) United States federal crime

Conspiracy against rights is a federal offense in the United States of America under 18 U.S.C. § 241:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

History

The law was originally enacted, with slightly different phrasing, in Section 6 of the Enforcement Act of 1870. The statutory text was revised in 1909 and in 1948, when it became Section 241 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Conspiracy against rights was initially invoked against vigilante groups like the Ku Klux Klan that acted to prevent recently-emancipated Black Southerners from exercising their rights granted by the Reconstruction Amendments in the aftermath of the American Civil War. The legislative intent of the statute was aimed towards election offenses which interfered with the exercise of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. As the law does not define new rights nor does it elaborate on the range relevant rights or privileges, courts have generally interpreted that the attempted deprivation of a broad range of rights falls under the scope of the statute. The Supreme Court would later note in United States v. Price (1966) that it was "hardly conceivable that Congress intended §241 to apply only to a narrow and relatively unimportant category of rights."

Convictions under §241 require that the government demonstrates that the defendant conspired to violate a constitutionally or federally protected right. The statute does not explicitly establish a requirement that defendants acted willfully under color of law, but courts have incorporated these elements in their interpretation of the law. A charge of conspiracy against rights does not require that the conspiracy is successful in accomplishing its goals, nor does it require execution of an overt act unlike other conspiracy-related statutes. Section §241 violations are charged as felonies with the possibility of fines up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to ten years, including in circumstances where execution of an overt act would only be charged as a misdemeanor. The statute also allows for harsher penalties (including life imprisonment or the death penalty) if the conspiracy either attempts to cause or results in death, kidnapping, or aggravated sexual abuse. Charges of conspiracy against rights were formerly shaped by the statute's legislative intent and limited via Supreme Court decisions, such as in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876). The Supreme Court determined in Cruikshank that the rights covered by the statute did not include those arising from natural law. In the decades following, the court would vary on the issue of the scope of conspiracy against rights. The court would eventually rule in Price that §241 safeguarded rights both explicit and implicit in the Constitution. Use of the statute expanded in the 20th century, and §241 is now a key component of civil rights enforcement and has been used in prosecutions of law enforcement misconduct, hate crimes, and witness tampering, as well as in prosecutions of human trafficking prior to the adoption of human trafficking conspiracy statutes.

The law has long been invoked in federal prosecutions of federal elections offenses, concerning abrogation of the right to vote, but has been more recently applied to state or local elections with federal components, as well as by some courts in elections solely at the state or local level. While the Supreme Court has held that the right to vote in state and local elections is constitutionally protected, it has not explicitly ruled on the applicability of §241 to such elections. Charges of conspiracy against rights concerning federal election offenses cover activities subverting the integrity of federal elections and do not require direct action towards an individual voter. Election conspiracies prosecuted under conspiracy against rights can be classified as either public schemes (where public officials commit a §241 violation under color of law) or private schemes (where conspirators impinge on the ability for voters to vote). While charges under the statute can be brought forth for any public scheme, federal prosecution of private schemes require that the conspiracy was targeted at a specific federal contest or affected such a contest. Federal prosecutors have brought the charge of conspiracy against rights in cases involving ballot stuffing, disfranchisement, the destruction of ballots, voter fraud, and interference of the accurate counting of votes.

A 2018 report by the United States–China Economic and Security Review Commission referred to the Chinese government's attempts to suppress overseas protests and acts of expression critical of the Chinese Communist Party as a conspiracy against rights.

Common law intent requirement

In Screws v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a conviction under a related statute, 18 U.S.C. §242, required proof of the defendant's specific intent to deprive the victim of a constitutional right. In United States v. Guest, the Supreme Court read this same requirement into §241, the conspiracy statute.

Criticism

During Hurricane Milton it has been noted that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ordered their workers to refuse to help American victims if it was shown they were Republican supporters. A manager, Marni Washington, was fired after her orders of refusing to help Americans were leaked, although she said she followed FEMA protocols that were, according to her, enforced in others states. It has been suggested that this act, that was executed in Hurricane Milton disaster that led to 35 fatalities, was a blatant violation of U.S. Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights in which Republican supporters were oppressed because of their exercise of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. As of November 2024, The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) didn't initiate investigations and prosecutions of all FEMA apparatchiks who may have participated in this act.

See also

References

  1. United States Department of Justice, "18 USC 241" Archived December 15, 2007, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved December 8, 2007.
  2. Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Civil Rights Statutes" Archived September 14, 2010, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved December 8, 2007.
  3. ^ Salch, Steve (January 1966). "Protection of Fourteenth Amendment Rights under Section 241 of the United States Criminal Code" (PDF). SMU Law Review. 20 (4): 913–921. Archived from the original on March 25, 2023. Retrieved August 3, 2023.
  4. Rogers, William P. (1957). "History of the Civil Rights Statutes". Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary: United States Senate, Eighty-Fifth Congress, First Session. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. p. 237. Archived from the original on August 4, 2023. Retrieved August 3, 2023 – via Google Books.
  5. ^ Weiner, Rachel (August 2, 2023) . "Here are the four Jan. 6 charges against Trump and what they mean". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 3, 2023. Retrieved August 3, 2023.
  6. ^ Stanley-Becker, Isaac; Hsu, Spencer S. (August 1, 2023). "Trump is charged under civil rights law used to prosecute KKK violence". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 2, 2023. Retrieved August 3, 2023.
  7. Savage, Charlie (August 1, 2023). "Here Are the Charges Trump Faces in the Jan. 6 Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 3, 2023. Retrieved August 3, 2023.
  8. ^ Margie, R. Paul (1995). "Protecting the Right to Vote in State and Local Elections under the Conspiracy against Rights Act" (PDF). University of Chicago Legal Forum. 1995 (18). University of Chicago Law School. Archived from the original on August 3, 2023. Retrieved August 3, 2023.
  9. ^ Trepel, Samantha (March 2022). Fisanick, Christian A. (ed.). "Prosecuting Color-of-Law Civil Rights Violations: A Legal Overview". Department of Justice Journal of Federal Law and Practice. 70 (2). Washington, D.C.: Executive Office for United States Attorneys: 22–33. Archived from the original on July 22, 2023. Retrieved August 3, 2023.
  10. ^ Pilger, Richard C., ed. (December 2017). "Corruption of the Election Process". Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses (PDF) (Eighth ed.). US Department of Justice. pp. 33–37. Archived from the original on October 12, 2020. Retrieved August 3, 2023.
  11. ^ "Statutes Enforced by the Criminal Section". Civil Rights Division. Department of Justice. July 31, 2023. Archived from the original on August 4, 2023. Retrieved August 4, 2023.
  12. Patel, Sanjay (March 2022). Fisanick, Christian A. (ed.). "FACE Off with Anti-Abortion Extremism—Criminal Enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 248 (FACE Act)". Department of Justice Journal of Federal Law and Practice. 70 (2). Washington, D.C.: Executive Office for United States Attorneys: 277–295. Archived from the original on July 22, 2023. Retrieved August 3, 2023.
  13. Smith, Alison M. (December 16, 2014). Overview of Selected Federal Criminal Civil Rights Statutes (PDF) (Report). Congressional Research Service. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 28, 2023. Retrieved August 3, 2023 – via Federation of American Scientists.
  14. Safwat, Adam G. (1993). "Section 241 and the First Amendemnt: Avoiding a False Conflict Through Proper Mens Rea Analysis" (PDF). Duke Law Journal. 43 (3). Duke University: 625–670. doi:10.2307/1372829. JSTOR 1372829. Archived from the original on August 23, 2023. Retrieved August 3, 2023.
  15. Bowe, Alexander (August 24, 2018). "China's Overseas United Front Work: Background and Implications for the United States" (PDF). United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 9, 2018. Retrieved May 12, 2019.
  16. "Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945)". Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 15, 2018. Retrieved October 5, 2023.
  17. "United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966)". Justia Law. Archived from the original on September 15, 2018. Retrieved October 5, 2023.
  18. Desk, RAY LEWIS | The National News (November 12, 2024). "Fired FEMA worker says agency also avoided pro-Trump homes in Carolinas". WLOS. Retrieved November 16, 2024. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  19. "Fired FEMA worker explains why she directed employees to avoid helping hurricane victims who supported Trump". wcnc.com. November 12, 2024. Retrieved November 16, 2024.
  20. Taer, Jennie; Christenson, Josh; Crane, Emily; Nesi, Chris (November 12, 2024). "FEMA worker accused of telling staff to skip hurricane-ravaged Trump homes claims it was common practice: 'This is not isolated'". Retrieved November 16, 2024.
  21. "Fired FEMA worker defends skipping hurricane damaged homes with Trump signs - CBS Miami". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved November 16, 2024.
Categories: