---
title: "Civil Rights Cases (1883) — AP Gov Definition & Exam Guide"
description: "The Civil Rights Cases (1883) ruled the 14th Amendment limits only state action, not private discrimination, gutting Reconstruction laws and enabling Jim Crow."
canonical: "https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/civil-rights-cases-1883"
type: "key-term"
subject: "AP US Government"
unit: "Unit 3"
---

# Civil Rights Cases (1883) — AP Gov Definition & Exam Guide

## Definition

The Civil Rights Cases (1883) were a Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourteenth Amendment restricts only state action, so Congress could not use it to ban private racial discrimination in public accommodations, which weakened federal civil rights enforcement and opened the door to Jim Crow.

## What It Is

The [Civil Rights](/ap-gov/unit-3/social-movements-equal-protection/study-guide/4nPfvNnp0wiBwd5QUlym "fv-autolink") Cases (1883) were a bundle of lawsuits the [Supreme Court](/ap-gov/key-terms/supreme-court "fv-autolink") decided together, all challenging the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a federal law that banned racial discrimination in hotels, theaters, railroads, and other public accommodations. The Court struck the law down. Its logic was the **state action doctrine**. The Fourteenth Amendment says no *state* shall deny equal protection or due process, so it only restrains governments, not private individuals or businesses. If a hotel owner refused to serve Black customers, that was private behavior, and Congress had no power under the Fourteenth Amendment to stop it.

The practical effect was huge. The ruling stripped Congress of its main constitutional tool for protecting newly freed African Americans, leaving civil rights enforcement to states that had no intention of enforcing anything. Combined with later decisions like *[Plessy v. Ferguson](/ap-gov/key-terms/plessy-v-ferguson "fv-autolink")* (1896), it cleared the legal runway for decades of segregation. The state action doctrine it created is still good law today, which is why the modern Civil Rights Act of 1964 rests on the commerce clause instead of the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Why It Matters

This case lives in [Unit 3](/ap-gov/unit-3 "fv-autolink") (Civil Liberties and Civil Rights), specifically Topic 3.7 on selective incorporation and the Fourteenth Amendment, supporting learning objective [AP Gov](/ap-gov "fv-autolink") 3.7.A. Here's the irony that makes it worth knowing. Selective incorporation is the story of the Fourteenth Amendment *expanding*, with the due process clause gradually applying Bill of Rights protections against the states. The Civil Rights Cases are the story of the same amendment *contracting*, with the Court reading it so narrowly that it couldn't touch private discrimination at all. Understanding both directions shows you the Fourteenth Amendment isn't a self-executing guarantee. Its real-world power depends entirely on how the Court interprets it in a given era.

## Connections

### Selective Incorporation (Unit 3)

Both hinge on the same words in the [Fourteenth Amendment](/ap-gov/key-terms/fourteenth-amendment "fv-autolink"), but they pull in opposite directions. Incorporation uses the amendment to limit what states can do to individual rights, while the Civil Rights Cases used the state-action requirement to limit what Congress can do about private discrimination. Same amendment, expanding in one lane and shrinking in the other.

### [Gitlow v. New York (Unit 3)](/ap-gov/key-terms/gitlow-v-new-york)

Gitlow (1925) kicked off selective incorporation by applying First Amendment free speech to the states through the [due process clause](/ap-gov/key-terms/due-process-clause "fv-autolink"). Compare the timeline. In 1883 the Court treated the Fourteenth Amendment as a narrow check on states only; four decades later it became the vehicle for nationalizing the Bill of Rights.

### Federalism and the Commerce Clause (Unit 1)

Because the Civil Rights Cases blocked the Fourteenth Amendment route, Congress wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1964 using its commerce power instead, regulating businesses as participants in interstate commerce. This is a classic example of how enumerated powers shape policy strategy, a core [Unit 1](/ap-gov/unit-1 "fv-autolink") idea.

### [McDonald v. Chicago (Unit 3)](/ap-gov/key-terms/mcdonald-v-chicago)

McDonald (2010) incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, showing the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause still doing heavy lifting more than a century after the Civil Rights Cases narrowed its equal protection reach. The two cases bookend the amendment's long evolution.

## On the AP Exam

The Civil Rights Cases are not one of the 15 required Supreme Court cases, so you won't be asked to brief them in a SCOTUS comparison FRQ. They show up as context. A multiple-choice stem might quote the state action doctrine and ask you to identify its implication, or ask why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 relies on the commerce clause rather than the Fourteenth Amendment. No released FRQ has used this case verbatim, but it strengthens any argument essay about how judicial interpretation, not just the text of an amendment, determines the scope of civil rights. Your job is to be able to explain the state action doctrine in one sentence and connect it to the Fourteenth Amendment's enforcement limits.

## Civil Rights Cases (1883) vs Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Both decisions entrenched segregation, but they answered different questions. The Civil Rights Cases (1883) were about *federal power*, ruling Congress couldn't ban discrimination by private businesses because the Fourteenth Amendment only covers state action. Plessy was about *state power*, ruling that states could mandate segregation by law as long as facilities were 'separate but equal.' Quick check for yourself. If the question is about private discrimination and limits on Congress, it's the Civil Rights Cases. If it's about state-mandated segregation, it's Plessy.

## Key Takeaways

- The Civil Rights Cases (1883) struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, ruling Congress could not ban private racial discrimination in public accommodations.
- The decision created the state action doctrine, meaning the Fourteenth Amendment restricts only governments, not private individuals or businesses.
- By gutting federal civil rights enforcement, the ruling helped clear the legal path for Jim Crow segregation in the South.
- Because the state action doctrine still stands, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was built on the commerce clause instead of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The case shows the flip side of selective incorporation, since the same Fourteenth Amendment that later expanded rights against states was read narrowly here to shrink congressional power.

## FAQs

### What did the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 decide?

The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state action, so Congress had no authority under it to outlaw private racial discrimination. This struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which had banned discrimination in hotels, theaters, and railroads.

### Did the Civil Rights Cases say segregation was constitutional?

Not directly. The Civil Rights Cases were about whether Congress could regulate private discrimination, and the Court said no. It was Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 that explicitly upheld state-mandated segregation under 'separate but equal.' Together, though, the two decisions made Jim Crow legally durable.

### How are the Civil Rights Cases different from the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The Civil Rights Cases struck down the 1875 act because it relied on the Fourteenth Amendment. The 1964 act succeeded because Congress grounded it in the commerce clause instead, regulating discrimination by businesses as part of interstate commerce. Same goal, different constitutional hook.

### Is the Civil Rights Cases (1883) a required Supreme Court case for AP Gov?

No, it's not one of the 15 required cases. But it's useful background for Topic 3.7, because it explains the state action doctrine and why the Fourteenth Amendment's reach depends on judicial interpretation.

### What is the state action doctrine?

It's the rule, established in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections only restrain governments. A state denying equal protection violates the Constitution, but a private business discriminating does not, unless a separate law (like the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits it.

## Related Study Guides

- [3.7 Selective Incorporation & the 14th Amendment](/ap-gov/unit-3/selective-incorporation-14th-amendment/study-guide/mAeEjila150UdtnF3ru6)

## Structured Data

```json
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"LearningResource","@id":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/civil-rights-cases-1883#resource","name":"Civil Rights Cases (1883) — AP Gov Definition & Exam Guide","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/civil-rights-cases-1883","learningResourceType":"Concept explainer","educationalLevel":"AP® / High School","about":{"@id":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/civil-rights-cases-1883#term"},"audience":{"@type":"EducationalAudience","educationalRole":"student"},"dateModified":"2026-06-11T05:53:07.227Z","isPartOf":{"@type":"Collection","name":"AP US Government Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Fiveable","url":"https://fiveable.me"}},{"@type":"DefinedTerm","@id":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/civil-rights-cases-1883#term","name":"Civil Rights Cases (1883)","description":"The Civil Rights Cases (1883) were a Supreme Court decision holding that the Fourteenth Amendment restricts only state action, so Congress could not use it to ban private racial discrimination in public accommodations, which weakened federal civil rights enforcement and opened the door to Jim Crow.","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms/civil-rights-cases-1883","inDefinedTermSet":{"@type":"DefinedTermSet","name":"AP US Government Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms"}},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What did the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 decide?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state action, so Congress had no authority under it to outlaw private racial discrimination. This struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which had banned discrimination in hotels, theaters, and railroads."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Did the Civil Rights Cases say segregation was constitutional?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Not directly. The Civil Rights Cases were about whether Congress could regulate private discrimination, and the Court said no. It was Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 that explicitly upheld state-mandated segregation under 'separate but equal.' Together, though, the two decisions made Jim Crow legally durable."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How are the Civil Rights Cases different from the Civil Rights Act of 1964?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The Civil Rights Cases struck down the 1875 act because it relied on the Fourteenth Amendment. The 1964 act succeeded because Congress grounded it in the commerce clause instead, regulating discrimination by businesses as part of interstate commerce. Same goal, different constitutional hook."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is the Civil Rights Cases (1883) a required Supreme Court case for AP Gov?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No, it's not one of the 15 required cases. But it's useful background for Topic 3.7, because it explains the state action doctrine and why the Fourteenth Amendment's reach depends on judicial interpretation."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is the state action doctrine?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It's the rule, established in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections only restrain governments. A state denying equal protection violates the Constitution, but a private business discriminating does not, unless a separate law (like the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits it."}}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"AP US Government","item":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Key Terms","item":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/key-terms"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Unit 3","item":"https://fiveable.me/ap-gov/unit-3"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Civil Rights Cases (1883)"}]}]}
```