| United States v. Guest | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 9, 1965 Decided March 28, 1966 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Guest |
| Citations | 383 U.S. 745 (more) 86 S. Ct. 1170; 16 L. Ed. 2d 239 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 246 F. Supp. 475 (M.D. Ga. 1964) (reversed and remanded) |
| Holding | |
| If a state participates in a conspiracy to infringe an individuals rights, the state has violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The state's participation in the conspiracy can be as minimal as possible, so long as the involvement exists the state has erred. Furthermore, there is a constitutional right to travel. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Black, Clark, White, Fortas; Harlan (in part); Warren, Douglas, Brennan (in part) |
| Concurrence | Clark, joined by Black, Fortas |
| Concur/dissent | Harlan |
| Concur/dissent | Brennan, joined by Warren, Douglas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Civil Rights Act of 1964 | |
United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court authored by Justice Potter Stewart, in which the court extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies, where there is minimal state participation in the conspiracy. The Court also held that there is a Constitutional right to travel from state to state.
While the majority avoided the question of whether Congress, by appropriate legislation, has the power to punish private conspiracies, Justice Clark, writing in concurrence, asserted that "there now can be no doubt that the specific language of §5 empowers the Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies - with or without state action - that interfere with 14th Amendment rights." Justice Hugo Black and Justice Abe Fortas joined Clark's concurrence.