U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 85— DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION

28 U.S.C. § 1343

Civil rights and elective franchise

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.(b) For purposes of this section—(1) the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a State; and(2) any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 932; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, § 42, 68 Stat. 1241; Pub. L. 85–315, part III, § 121, Sept. 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 637; Pub. L. 96–170, § 2, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 41(12), (13), and (14) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 24, pars. 12, 13, 14, 36 Stat. 1092).

Words “civil action” were substituted for “suits,” “suits at law or in equity” in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Numerous changes were made in arrangement and phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1979—Pub. L. 96–170 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

1957—Pub. L. 85–315 inserted “and elective franchise” in section catchline and added par. (4).

1954—Act Sept. 3, 1954, substituted “section 1985 of Title 42” for “section 47 of Title 8” wherever appearing.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1979 Amendment

Pub. L. 96–170, § 3, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284, provided that: “The amendments made by this Act [amending this section and section 1983 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare] shall apply with respect to any deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws occurring after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 29, 1979].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8,449 cases (683 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600 (1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600 (1979). · cites it 28× “[13] Following earlier Fifth Circuit cases, the Court of Appeals concluded that federal jurisdiction was conferred by the language in 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (4) describing actions seeking relief "under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights .”
Glenn R. Mahone & Harvey L. Mahone v. David S. Waddle, Albert B. Ellway, Jr. & the City of Pittsburgh, 564 F.2d 1018 (3rd Cir. 1977). · cites it 37× “§ 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (4). Laboriously building its analysis, the dissent endeavors to construct a wall insulating the City from the consequences of its officers’ alleged misconduct.”
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). · cites it 22× “Under the present heading of "Jurisdiction *199 of the Subject Matter" we hold only that the matter set forth in the complaint does arise under the Constitution and is within 28 U. S. C. § 1343 . Article III, § 2, of the Federal Constitution provides that "The judicial Power…”
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974). · cites it 18× “§ 2201 , and jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U. S. C. §§ 1343 (3) and (4). The District Court found that the equal protection claim was substantial and provided a basis for pendent jurisdiction to adjudicate the so-called "statutory" claim—the alleged conflict between state…”
Examining Bd. of Engineers, Architects & Surveyors v. Flores De Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976). · cites it 14× “This case presents the issue whether the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico possesses *575 jurisdiction, under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), [1] to entertain a suit based upon 42 U.”
Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1 (1976). · cites it 10× “, was grounded in 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that pendent jurisdiction was not available to adjudicate petitioner's state-law claims against Spokane County, over which party federal jurisdiction was otherwise nonexistent.”
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980). · cites it 8× “Section 629 (16), the jurisdictional provision for the circuit courts and the model for the current jurisdictional provision, 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3), applied to deprivations of rights secured by "the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law providing…”
Fair Assessment in Real Est. Assn., Inc. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981). · cites it 10× “In addition, the statute made no mention of any requirement that state remedies be exhausted before resort to the federal courts could be had under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 . [3] The combined effect of this newly created federal cause of action and the absence of an express exhaustion…”
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). · cites it 4× “*663 Although, after plenary consideration, we have decided the merits of over a score of cases brought under § 1983 in which the principal defendant was a school board [5] —and, indeed, in some of which § 1983 and its jurisdictional counterpart, 28 U. S. C. § 1343 , provided…”
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978). · cites it 6× “The District Court rejected petitioners' contention, finding that jurisdiction was conferred by 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (4) and 25 U. S. C. § 1302 (8).”
Clarence Eisen v. Oliver C. Eastman, 421 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1969). · cites it 16× “§ 1983 , and its jurisdictional implementation, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3), federal courts are now being asked to determine a great variety of controversies between city or state officials and citizens who prefer litigating in the federal courts to pursuing their state remedies.”
Maher v. Gagne, 448 U.S. 122 (1980). · cites it 6× “§ 1983 [6] and invoked federal jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 . [7] *126 A few months after the action was commenced, while discovery was underway, petitioner amended the AFDC regulations to authorize a deduction for all reasonable work-related expenses.”
Show all 8,449 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(1) — 6 cases
Hattie Brazier v. W. B. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401 (5th Cir. 1961).
Am.'s Best Cinema Corp. v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 347 F. Supp. 328 (N.D. Ind. 1972).
DesVergnes v. Seekonk Water Dist., 448 F. Supp. 1256 (D. Mass. 1978).
English v. Town of Huntington, 335 F. Supp. 1369 (E.D.N.Y 1970).
White v. Boyle, 390 F. Supp. 514 (W.D. Va. 1975).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(2) — 1 case
Barnes v. Childs, 63 F.R.D. 628 (N.D. Miss. 1974).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) — 133 cases
Glenn R. Mahone & Harvey L. Mahone v. David S. Waddle, Albert B. Ellway, Jr. & the City of Pittsburgh, 564 F.2d 1018 (3rd Cir. 1977). “§ 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (4). Laboriously building its analysis, the dissent endeavors to construct a wall insulating the City from the consequences of its officers’ alleged misconduct.”
Lloyd T. Griffin v. Robert F. Burns, Etc., Thomas A. McCormick, 570 F.2d 1065 (1st Cir. 1978).
Katherine Amen v. City of Dearborn, a Mun. Corp., 532 F.2d 554 (6th Cir. 1976).
Latrelle Campbell v. Pierce Cnty., Georgia, by & Through the Bd. of Commissioners of Pierce Cnty., Troy Mattox, Foy Kimbrell, & Larry Thomas, 741 F.2d 1342 (11th Cir. 1984).
McClellan v. Univ. Heights, Inc., 338 F. Supp. 374 (D.R.I. 1972).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) — 15 cases
Kevin Howlett v. The Salish & Kootenal Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana, 529 F.2d 233 (9th Cir. 1976).
Dorothy Gautreaux v. George W. Romney, Sec'y of the Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 448 F.2d 731 (7th Cir. 1971).
Charles & Charlene Baker v. F & F Inv. Co., Fed. Hous. Admin., 489 F.2d 829 (7th Cir. 1973).
Giguere v. Affleck, 370 F. Supp. 154 (D.R.I. 1974).
Hecht v. Coop. for Am. Relief Everywhere, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 305 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a) — 5 cases
McNamara v. Malloy, 337 F. Supp. 732 (D. Vt. 1971).
Foster v. Kaweah Delta Med. Ctr. CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
Tolliver v. Ohio Parole Bd. (S.D. Ohio 2023).
(PC) Storm v. Newsom (E.D. Cal. 2024).
(PC) Storm v. Newsom (E.D. Cal. 2025).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(1)(2) — 1 case
City of Philadelphia v. Bradley (E.D. Pa. 2024).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) — 10 cases
Evelyn Davis v. Chong M. Pak Ralph G. Cantrell Diane E. France, in Their Off. & Individual Capacities, 856 F.2d 648 (4th Cir. 1988).
Goodnight v. Shalala, 837 F. Supp. 1564 (D. Utah 1993).
Newton v. Se. Alabama Gas Dist., 708 F. Supp. 1254 (M.D. Ala. 1989).
Johnston ex rel. Johnston v. Ellenbecker, 692 F. Supp. 1099 (D.S.D. 1988).
Sachs v. Quinlan (D. Ariz. 2022).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) — 3 cases
Stephen v. PGA Sheraton Resort, 669 F. Supp. 1573 (S.D. Fla. 1987).
Gilliard v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
Harris v. Muhammad (9th Cir. 2026).
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.