42 U.S.C. § 1994
Peonage abolished
The holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage is abolished and forever prohibited in any Territory or State of the United States; and all acts, laws, resolutions, orders, regulations, or usages of any Territory or State, which have heretofore established, maintained, or enforced, or by virtue of which any attempt shall hereafter be made to establish, maintain, or enforce, directly or indirectly, the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise, are declared null and void.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88
cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1956–2026 · leading case: Burrell v. Burrell
Burrell v. Burrell (1984)
“[4] Second, Homer argues that the obligation to pay alimony until Teresa dies or remarries constitutes slavery and involuntary servitude, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; Article I, section 1, of the Alaska Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §…”
Bayh v. Sonnenburg (1991)
“The § 1983 claim alleged violations of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, the FLSA, and a federal anti-peonage statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1994 (1988). Judge Andersen rendered a general judgment for plaintiffs without findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 17, 1987.”
Vaughn v. Phoenix House New York (2020)
“Our summary order also dismissed Vaughn’s claims under the federal anti-peonage statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1994 . 3 Because we conclude that Vaughn was not an employee of Phoenix House within the meaning of the FLSA, we AFFIRM the February 12, 2019 judgment of the District Court.”
City of Memphis v. Greene (1981)
“§ 1990, 42 U. S. C. § 1994 , which prohibits peonage, see Pollock v.”
Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966)
“546 , now 42 U. S. C. § 1994 (1964 ed.), under the Enforcement Clause of the Thirteenth Amendment.”
Sharp v. State (1989)
“The district court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs appeal.”
Santiago v. City of Philadelphia (1977)
“42 U.S.C. § 1994 : Plaintiffs assert that some YSC residents have been forced to work without *157 compensation and thereby have been subjected to involuntary servitude in violation of 42 U.”
DEL ELMER ZACHAY v. Metzger (1997)
“” Plaintiff alleges four causes of action all of which are based on alleged violations of the Thirteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1994 , 1986 & 1985. Plaintiff seeks $959,-428.”
Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon (In Re Gordon) (2012)
“Gordon urges that application of Section 706(b) to an individual debtor violates the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution as constituting involuntary servitude and violates the Anti-Peonage Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1994 . Further, Mr. Gordon argues that, even if the application of…”
Flood v. Kuhn (1972)
“In general, the complaint charged violations of the federal antitrust laws and civil rights statutes, violation of state statutes and the common law, and the imposition of a form of peonage and involuntary *266 servitude contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment and 42 U. S. C. §…”
Jenkins v. Trustees of Sandhills Community College (2003)
“§ 1986 ; (23) 42 U.S.C. § 1994 ; (24) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), (h) and (m); (25) 42 U.”
Paguirigan v. Prompt Nursing Emp't Agency LLC (2017)
“Constitution, the Anti-Peonage Law codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1994 , and New York state law.”
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.