18 U.S.C. § 246
Deprivation of relief benefits
Whoever directly or indirectly deprives, attempts to deprive, or threatens to deprive any person of any employment, position, work, compensation, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress appropriating funds for work relief or relief purposes, on account of political affiliation, race, color, sex, religion, or national origin, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1936–2025 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). “§3151 (a) (Full Employment and Bal- anced Growth; Nondiscrimination) 18 U. S. C. §246 (Deprivation of Relief Benefits) 18 U.”
Michael Jamie Fundiller & Rae Winder Fundiller, His Wife, Plaintiffs v. The City of Cooper City, a Mun. Corp., 777 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1985). “§ 1985 , 18 U.S.C. § 246 , and state tort law, against the City of Cooper City, its Mayor, an official of the City’s Police Department, and eleven uniformed police officers.”
Belva Webb v. Joseph Morella, 522 F. App'x 238 (5th Cir. 2013). “The Webbs also spend a substantial portion of their briefing accusing Morelia of committing hate crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 246 (b)(2)(B), although they acknowledge that there is no civil cause of action under that statute.”
Shahin v. Darling, 606 F. Supp. 2d 525 (D. Del. 2009). “The complaint makes no mention of 18 U.S.C. § 246 . Moreover, there is no private right of action under § 246, a criminal statute.”
United States v. Perlstein, 126 F.2d 789 (3rd Cir. 1942). “In this case the defendant had been charged with and convicted of participation in a conspiracy to harbor and conceal a fugitive from federal process in violation of Section 141 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S. C.A. § 246. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment holding…”
United States v. Smithers, 27 F.3d 142 (5th Cir. 1994). “y person arrested upon a warrant or other process issued under the provisions of any law of the United states, or shall, directly or indirectly, aid, abet, or assist any person so arrested to escape from the custody of such officer or other person, or shall harbor or conceal any…”
United States v. Brian Foy, 416 F.2d 940 (7th Cir. 1969). “1940), the court having before it 18 U.S.C. § 246 , the predecessor of § 1071, held that the words “harbor” and “conceal” must be construed narrowly, not to include all forms of assistance.”
Piquett v. United States, 81 F.2d 75 (7th Cir. 1936). “The offense which appellant is alleged to have conspired to commit is defined in section 141 of the Criminal Code, 18 U. S.C.A. § 246, and so far as it is material to the questions herein presented, reads as follows: “Whoever shall rescue * * * any person arrested upon a warrant…”
United States v. Shapiro, 113 F.2d 891 (2d Cir. 1940). “Each indictment charges that the appellants and other persons (including the fugitives) who were named as conspirators but not as defendants, illegally conspired to violate section 246 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 246 . This section makes it a criminal…”
Fulbright v. United States, 91 F.2d 210 (8th Cir. 1937). “a charge of conspiracy to violate the statute, Is knowledge of the defendant that a federal warrant has been issued for the arrest of the person concealed an ingredient of the crime? and (2) If so, does the testimony in this case support the verdict ? The substantive crime,…”
United States v. Marsh, 13 C.M.A. 252 (1962). “There, the question presented was whether the predecessor act of 18 USC § 3 should be construed, in light of another Federal statute, 18 USC § 246 , to require proof of the principal's arrest at the time of the accessory’s aid to him.”
Fundiller v. City of Cooper City, 578 F. Supp. 303 (S.D. Fla. 1984). “§ 242 (cited in the Complaint as 18 U.S.C. § 246 ). The court, having reviewed the file and being fully advised, finds that Plaintiffs have not responded to this argument.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.