holding that despite the fact that “[o]n its face, § 1985(3) provides only for an award of damages for violation of civil rights[,]” injunctive relief is available under Section 1985(3)
How later courts described this case
- holding that despite the fact that “[o]n its face, § 1985(3) provides only for an award of damages for violation of civil rights[,]” injunctive relief is available under Section 1985(3)
- holding that § 5 grants Congress the power to reach purely private action
- worshippers at particular church, protected class
- worshippers at white parish successfully sought injunction under Section 1985(3) against disruption of services by black civil rights workers
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*1239 MEHAFFY, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
The result in this case is compelled by Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 , 91 S.Ct. 1790 , 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971), since it is entirely clear that the defendants disrupted the church services and in so doing there was racial invidious discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action. I therefore abide that mandate and concur in the result. However, I do not agree with the logic of the majority opinion in reaching this result as it involves an expansion of the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. I would rest the decision solely on Griffin v. Breckenridge, supra.