# Griffin v. Breckenridge

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 7, 1971 · 403 U.S. 88

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424614

## Case

- **Full name:** GRIFFIN Et Al. v. BRECKENRIDGE Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 7, 1971
- **Citations:** 403 U.S. 88; 3 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8284; 9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1196; 91 S. Ct. 1790; 29 L. Ed. 2d 338; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 3774
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harlan
- **Judges:** Stewart, Burger, Black, Douglas, Harlan, V-B, Bren-Nan, White, Marshall
- **Cited by:** 3,158 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Limited by Mayer v. Wedgewood Neighborhood Coalition, 707 F.2d 1020 (1983).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424614

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that there must be “some racial, or *458 perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action. The conspiracy, in other words, must aim at a deprivation of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all.”
- explaining-in the context of section 1985(3) — that the “language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges or immunities, means that there must be some .,, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action,”
- explaining that Section 1985(3) creates a statutory cause of action for “victims of conspiratorial, racially discriminatory private action aimed at depriving [the victim] of the basic rights that the law secures to all free [people]”
- stating that under section 1985(3) the language requiring an intent to deprive of equal protection means there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based individually discriminatory claims behind the conspirators’ action

## Opinion text

Mb. Justice Harlan,
concurring.
T agree with the Court’s opinion, except that I find it unnecessary to rely on the “right of interstate travel” as a premise for justifying federal jurisdiction under •§ 1985 (3). With that reservation, I join the opinion and judgment of the Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424614. Public record. Not legal advice.