42 U.S.C. § 1987
Prosecution of violation of certain laws
The United States attorneys, marshals, and deputy marshals, the United States magistrate judges appointed by the district and territorial courts, with power to arrest, imprison, or bail offenders, and every other officer who is especially empowered by the President, are authorized and required, at the expense of the United States, to institute prosecutions against all persons violating any of the provisions of section 1990 of this title or of sections 5506 to 5516 and 5518 to 5532 of the Revised Statutes, and to cause such persons to be arrested, and imprisoned or bailed, for trial before the court of the United States or the territorial court having cognizance of the offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Nelson A. Rockefeller
Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Nelson A. Rockefeller (1973)
“§§ 241 , 242, and he has thereby failed to carry out the duty placed upon him by 42 U.S.C. § 1987 , discussed below. As a remedy for the asserted failure of the defendants to prosecute violations of state and federal criminal laws, plaintiffs request relief in the nature of…”
Johnson v. City of New York (2009)
“While the complaint also purports to bring a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1987 , that section authorizes federal prosecutors to "institute prosecutions against all persons violating any of the provisions” of the federal criminal code.”
Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco (2007)
“The district court also found in the alternative that the award of sanctions was justified under 42 U.S.C. § 1987 . Because we affirm the award of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), we do not address this alternate basis for the sanctions.”
Robert C. Harris v. Dr. R. O. Settle, Warden, Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Missouri (1963)
“s he was walking in a tunnel between two buildings at the Center, Knox, a white inmate, passed by, called him a bad name, and spat in his face; that Harris then struck Knox twice with his fist; that as a consequence Harris was placed first in solitary confinement and later in a…”
Moses v. Kennedy (1963)
“Plaintiffs point to language in 42 U.S.C. § 1987 which states that Federal officials are “authorized and required” to prosecute persons who have violated certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act, and argues that this language makes the above considerations of judgment and…”
Bruce Baines v. City of Danville, Virginia, Hildreth G. McGhee v. City of Danville, Virginia (1966)
“Now 42 U.S.C.A. § 1987 . . Now 42 U.S.C.A. § 1989 .”
Toth v. Bristol Township (2002)
“Plaintiffs claim against Defendants based upon 42 U.S.C. § 1987 is dismissed pursuant to Fed.”
Hudson v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Division, Litton Systems, Inc. (1981)
“See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1987 , 1988, 1990, 1991. In other words, while persons who allege that their civil rights have been violated need not be prisoners in order to be eligible to bring an action pursuant to 42 U.”
Davis v. Self (2013)
“§ 1986 , 42 U.S.C. § 1987 , 18 U.S.C. § 241 , 18 U.”
Banzhaf v. Smith (1984)
“1973) (despite mandatory language in 42 U.S.C. § 1987 , Congress did not intend to preclude executive's exercise of prosecutorial discretion and court could not compel criminal prosecution); and Pugach v.”
People of The State of New York v. Trump (2023)
“There is no discretion, and the Court has a mandatory duty under 42 USC § 1987 to issue appropriate criminal process(es).”
TRUDNOS v. STRADA (2021)
“4 See generally Compl. While Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of disjointed counts and conclusory factual allegations concerning Defendants’ purported violations, he appears to assert claims under: 42 U.”
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.