U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 89— DISTRICT COURTS; REMOVAL OF CASES FROM STATE COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 1443

Civil rights cases

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof;(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 938.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 74 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 31, 36 Stat. 1096).

Other provisions of section 74 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 1446 and 1447 of this title.

Words “or in the part of the State where such suit or prosecution is pending” after “courts of such States,” were omitted as unnecessary.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,745 cases (725 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966). · cites it 32× “[1] They filed petitions to remove their cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi under 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1964 ed.). [2] Alleging *811 that they were members of a civil rights group engaged in a drive to encourage Negro voter…”
Jagdishbhai & Hansaben Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “We affirm as to the remand order based on 28 U.S.C. § 1443 and as to the award of attorney’s fees.”
Floyd B. Conrad v. Donald W. Robinson, 871 F.2d 612 (6th Cir. 1989). · cites it 14× “Robinson removed this action on November 30, 1987, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1). On January 19, 1988, the district court sua sponte dismissed this action as not being properly removed to federal court.”
Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780 (1966). · cites it 10× “That law, now 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1964 ed.), provides: "§ 1443.”
Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213 (1975). · cites it 10× “This case concerns the application of 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1), permitting defendants in state cases to remove the proceedings to the federal district courts under certain conditions, in the light of Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, § 101 (a), 82 Stat.”
State of Alabama v. Steven Thomason, 687 F. App'x 874 (11th Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “Thomason sought removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1), which allows defendants to remove state actions under narrow circumstances where necessary for the protection of civil rights.”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Jefferson, 314 F. Supp. 3d 768 (S.D. Tex. 2018). · cites it 19× “SIM LAKE, UNITED DISTRICT JUDGE On March 9, 2018, defendants, Dezra Jefferson and Vincent Jefferson, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1443 , 1446, and 1447(b), removed this action from the County Court of Law No.”
Peter Vlaming v. West Point Sch. Bd., 10 F.4th 300 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 5× “§ 1441 (c), and the civil rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (2), because the claims turned on the school board’s enforcement of Title IX, 20 U.”
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007). · cites it 2× “We are well aware that § 1447(d)'s immunization of erroneous remands has undesirable consequences in the FSIA context.”
Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980). · cites it 2× “" The availability of this alternative sanction helped support the holding that 28 U. S. C. § 1443 (1) did not permit removal to federal court of a state prosecution in which the defense was that the state law conflicted with the defendants' federal rights.”
Denise F. Delavigne v. Dorsey H. Delavigne, Jr., 530 F.2d 598 (4th Cir. 1976). · cites it 7× “Removal was sought under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1) on the ground that sex discrimination would preclude the husband from receiving a fair trial in the state court.”
Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U.S. 600 (1979). · cites it 2× “Our conclusion that the Social Security Act does not fall within the terms of either § 1343 (3) or (4) is supported by this Court's construction of similar phrases in the removal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1443 . The removal statute makes reference to "any law providing for the…”
Show all 1,745 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) — 13 cases
Thomas Rachel v. State of Georgia, 342 F.2d 336 (5th Cir. 1965).
John Davis & Fronzie Hazzard v. State of Alabama, 399 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1968).
The People of the State of California v. Ronald Pobuta, Ellsworth Swait & William Monroe Vick, Appeal of William Monroe Vick, 437 F.2d 1200 (9th Cir. 1971).
Bar Ass'n of Baltimore City v. Posner, 391 F. Supp. 76 (D. Maryland 1975).
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Harold Lee Jones, 367 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1966).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1443(2) — 1 case
Bruce Baines v. City of Danville, Virginia, Hildreth G. McGhee v. City of Danville, Virginia, 357 F.2d 756 (4th Cir. 1966).
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.