# Russell Means v. Dick Wilson

> Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · August 5, 1975 · 522 F.2d 833

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462107

## Case

- **Full name:** Russell MEANS Et Al., Appellants., v. Dick WILSON Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 5, 1975
- **Citations:** 522 F.2d 833; 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13295
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Webster
- **Judges:** Lay, Ross, Webster
- **Cited by:** 126 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462107

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) protects the right to vote in tribal elections against interference from private conspiracies and that political dissidents constituted a class for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3)
- holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) protects the right to vote in tribal elections against interference from private conspiracies and that political dissidents constituted a class for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
- holding tribal members stated a claim against the tribal election board for interference with their right to vote in tribal elections under § 1302(8) based on allegations of procedural misconduct aimed at ensuring the election of the incumbent council president
- applying traditional constitutional prin­ ciples to practice that “ is not founded [on a] tribal custom or governmental pur­ pose which would justify modification of traditional equal protection concepts”

## Opinion text

WEBSTER, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in Parts I and III of the opinion, but I respectfully dissent from the holding in Part II.
I cannot agree that supporters of a particular candidate form a sufficiently discrete class upon which to predicate federal jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3). Race is not involved in this contest; Indian supporters of one group of political candidates bring this action against Indian supporters of another. The holding in Part II of the majority opinion permits a non-insular, mutable, amorphous group to satisfy the alternative requirement in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 , 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798 , 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971), that “there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” (Emphasis added.)
Taken to its logical extension this holding grants federal jurisdiction to any group of supporters of a local candidate who claim they were purposefully victimized by their opponents in state or local elections. Thus is introduced into our system a “general federal tort law” feared by Justice Stewart, author of Griffin, 403 U.S. at 102 , 91 S.Ct. 1790 .
Acceptance of my view on this point would not leave the plaintiffs without a remedy. See Point III of the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462107. Public record. Not legal advice.