28 U.S.C. § 1343
Civil rights and elective franchise
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.
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
Pub. L. 96–170, § 3,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8,449
cases (683 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization
Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Organization (1979)
“[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 and Harvey L. Mahone v. David S. Waddle, Albert B. Ellway, Jr. And the City of Pittsburgh (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.”
Baker v. Carr (1962)
“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 (1974)
“§ 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" claimthe alleged conflict between state…”
Examining Bd. of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors v. Flores De Otero (1976)
“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 (1976)
“, 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 (1980)
“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 Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary (1981)
“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 Social Servs. (1978)
“*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 (1978)
“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 (1969)
“§ 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 (1980)
“§ 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.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(1) — 6 cases
White v. Boyle (1975)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(2) — 1 case
Barnes v. Childs (1974)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) — 133 cases
Glenn R. Mahone and Harvey L. Mahone v. David S. Waddle, Albert B. Ellway, Jr. And the City of Pittsburgh (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.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) — 15 cases
Dorothy Gautreaux v. George W. Romney, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (1971)
Giguere v. Affleck (1974)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a) — 5 cases
McNamara v. Malloy (1971)
(PC) Storm v. Newsom (2024)
(PC) Storm v. Newsom (2025)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(1)(2) — 1 case
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) — 10 cases
Goodnight v. Shalala (1993)
Sachs v. Quinlan (2022)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) — 3 cases
Gilliard v. United States (2019)
Harris v. Muhammad (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.