Editing Civil Rights Act (section)

===Enactment, constitutionalization, and reenactment===
[[File:Flickr - USCapitol - Civil Rights Bill Passes, 1866.jpg|thumb|Mural of the passage of the act]]
Senator [[Lyman Trumbull]] was the [[United States Senate|Senate]] sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and he argued that Congress had power to enact it in order to eliminate a discriminatory "badge of servitude" prohibited by the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth Amendment]].<ref name=Salzman>Salzman, Lawrence. "Civil Rights Act of 1866" in ''Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties'', by Paul Finkelman, Volume 1, [https://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&pg=PA300 pp. 299–300] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709183401/https://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&pg=PA300 |date=July 9, 2021 }} (CRC Press, 2006).</ref> [[United States House of Representatives|Congressman]] [[John Bingham]], principal author of the first section of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], was one of several Republicans who believed (prior to that Amendment) that Congress lacked power to pass the 1866 Act.<ref>Curtis, Michael Kent. ''No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights'', p. 80 (Duke University Press 1986).</ref> In the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately adopted Trumbull's Thirteenth Amendment rationale for congressional power to ban racial discrimination by states and by private parties, as the Thirteenth Amendment does not require a [[state actor]].<ref name=Salzman />

To the extent that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 may have been intended to go beyond preventing discrimination, by conferring particular rights on all citizens, the constitutional power of Congress to do that was more questionable. For example, Representative [[William Lawrence (Ohio Republican)|William Lawrence]] argued that Congress had power to enact the statute because of the [[Privileges and Immunities Clause]] in Article IV of the original unamended Constitution, even though courts had suggested otherwise.<ref>Bogen, David. ''Privileges and Immunities: Reference Guide to the United States Constitution'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=AIA6Ya8oKB8C&pg=PA43 page 43] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210709184944/https://books.google.com/books?id=AIA6Ya8oKB8C&pg=PA43 |date=July 9, 2021 }} (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003).</ref>

In any event, there is currently no consensus that the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 actually purports to confer any legal benefits upon white citizens.<ref>Lund, Nelson. [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1658198 "Two Faces of Judicial Restraint (Or Are There More?) in McDonald v. Chicago"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220831025427/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658198 |date=August 31, 2022 }}, ''Florida Law Review'' (forthcoming).</ref> Representative [[Samuel Shellabarger (congressman)|Samuel Shellabarger]] said that it did not.<ref>Harrison, John. "Reconstructing the Privileges or Immunities Clause", 10 ''Yale Law Journal'' 1385 (1992).</ref><ref>[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=334 ''Congressional Globe'', House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, page 1293 (1866)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928003421/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071%2Fllcg071.db&recNum=334 |date=September 28, 2018 }}.</ref>

After enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by overriding a presidential veto,<ref>{{Cite web| last = Johnson| first = Andrew| url = http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1944| title = Veto of the Civil Rights Bill| access-date = April 8, 2018| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20101226044313/http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1944| archive-date = December 26, 2010| url-status = dead}}</ref><ref>Belz (2000)</ref> some members of Congress supported the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,<ref>{{cite web |title=Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968), at 436. |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/409/ |access-date=May 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230520172457/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/409/ |archive-date=May 20, 2023 |date=June 17, 1968}}</ref> or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act.<ref>Yen, Chin-Yung. ''Rights of citizens and persons under the Fourteenth amendment'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=znpDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7 page 7] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190330161752/https://books.google.com/books?id=znpDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7 |date=March 30, 2019 }} (New Era Printing Company 1905).</ref> Thus, the [[Citizenship Clause]] in the Fourteenth Amendment parallels citizenship language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and likewise the [[Equal Protection Clause]] parallels nondiscrimination language in the 1866 Act; the extent to which other clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment may have incorporated elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is a matter of continuing debate.<ref>See ''[[McDonald v. Chicago]]'', 561 U.S. (2010).</ref>

Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was completed in 1868, 2 years after, the 1866 Act was reenacted, as Section 18 of the [[Enforcement Act of 1870]].<ref>{{cite web|title=The Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871|url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/EnforcementActs.htm#:~:text=In%20its%20first%20effort%20to,intention%20of%20violating%20citizens'%20constitutional|website=United States Senate|access-date=June 9, 2023|archive-date=March 21, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210321135403/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/EnforcementActs.htm#:~:text=In%20its%20first%20effort%20to,intention%20of%20violating%20citizens'%20constitutional|url-status=live}}</ref>

After Johnson's veto was overridden, the measure became law. Despite this victory, even some Republicans who had supported the goals of the Civil Rights Act began to doubt that Congress possessed the constitutional power to turn those goals into laws.<ref>Rosen, Jeffrey. ''The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America'', p. 79 (MacMillan 2007).</ref><ref>Newman, Roger. ''The Constitution and its Amendments'', Vol. 4, p. 8 (Macmillan 1999).</ref> The experience encouraged both radical and moderate Republicans to seek Constitutional guarantees for black rights, rather than relying on temporary political majorities.{{sfn|Goldstone|2011|pp=22–23}}

The activities of groups such as the [[Ku Klux Klan]] (KKK) undermined the act, meaning that it failed to immediately secure the civil rights of African Americans.<ref>{{Cite web |title=United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/106/629/ |access-date=2024-09-15 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref>

While it has been ''de jure'' illegal in the U.S. to [[employment discrimination|discriminate in employment]] and housing on the basis of race since 1866, federal penalties were not provided for until the second half of the 20th century (with the passage of related civil rights legislation), which meant remedies were left to the individuals involved: because those being discriminated against had limited or no access to legal assistance, this often left many victims of discrimination without recourse.<ref>{{Cite web |title=McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/792/ |access-date=2024-09-15 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref>

There have been an increasing number of remedies provided under this act since the second half of the 20th century, including the landmark ''[[Jones v. Mayer]]'' and ''Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc.'' decisions in 1968.<ref>Player (2004).</ref>