13th Amendment

Example 1

A businesswoman hires a 16-year-old high schooler to work at her home as her maid. Initially, the job goes well. But one day, the businesswoman grows tired of paying the maid, so she coerces the maid into working for free against her will. Such coercion violates the Thirteenth Amendment, as the maid is working involuntarily.

Example 2

Congress passes a law banning racial discrimination in college admissions. To justify the bill, Congress cites its authority to ban the “badges and incidents of slavery” under the Thirteenth Amendment, because racism in college admissions is historically a result of slavery.

Case Examples

• Definition of involuntary servitude: “Involuntary servitude” within the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment and its enforcing statute is “a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for a defendant by use or threat of physical restraint or injury or by use of coercion through law or legal process.”
• Manliguez v. Joseph, 226 F. Supp. 2d 377 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). In Manliguez, the plaintiff sued the defendants in civil court for involuntary servitude and violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claims were time-barred because the alleged conduct occurred more than three years earlier. Id. The court reluctantly agreed, holding that the state's three-year statute of limitations applied; therefore, the case was dismissed. Id.

Key facts:

The phrase “badges or incidents of slavery” isn’t in the text of the Thirteenth Amendment itself. Instead, it was coined by the Supreme Court in 1883 in the Civil Rights Cases. In that decision, the Supreme Court limited Congress’ power to use the Thirteenth Amendment to regulate private conduct, holding that the amendment didn’t apply to racial segregation by private actors. But in 1968, the Supreme Court overturned that doctrine in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., ruling that Congress could use the Thirteenth Amendment to regulate private conduct that was a relic of slavery. 392 U.S. 409. In Jones, the Supreme Court used this new understanding of the Thirteenth Amendment to hold that racial discrimination in housing by private actors is unconstitutional. Id.