42 U.S.C. § 1985 — Civil Rights Conspiracy
The federal civil rights conspiracy statute — use it when two or more people conspired to violate your rights, but be warned: it requires proof of racial or class-based motivation.
42 U.S.C. § 1985 is the federal civil rights conspiracy statute. It has three subsections, but the one most relevant to police misconduct is § 1985(3) — which makes it unlawful for two or more people to conspire to deprive someone of equal protection of the laws or equal privileges and immunities under the laws.
How It’s Different from § 1983
Section 1983 is the workhorse of civil rights litigation. It covers any constitutional violation committed by someone acting under color of law. You don’t need to prove the officer was motivated by racism or bias — just that they violated your rights.
Section 1985(3) is narrower and harder to prove. It adds a conspiracy element and — critically — requires class-based discriminatory animus. That means you must show the conspirators were motivated by hatred of or prejudice against a protected class.
| § 1983 | § 1985(3) | |
|---|---|---|
| Who can be sued | State actors only | State actors and private individuals |
| Conspiracy required | No (but can allege one) | Yes — two or more people |
| Discriminatory motive | Not required | Required — must show class-based animus |
| Constitutional violation | Any constitutional right | Equal protection / equal privileges |
The Big Advantage: Reaching Private Actors
The most powerful feature of § 1985(3) is that it can reach private individuals — people who aren’t government employees. Section 1983 only covers people acting under color of state law. But if a private citizen conspired with a police officer to violate your rights based on your race, § 1985(3) can reach both of them.
This matters in situations like:
- A private complainant who lied to police to get you arrested because of your race
- Private security working with police to target people of a particular race or religion
- Off-duty officers conspiring with civilians
What You Have to Prove
To win a § 1985(3) claim, you need to show:
-
A conspiracy — two or more people agreed to deprive you of your rights. This doesn’t require a formal plan. Circumstantial evidence (coordinated actions, shared motives, parallel behavior) can be enough.
-
An act in furtherance — at least one conspirator did something to carry out the conspiracy.
-
Injury or deprivation — you were actually harmed or deprived of a right.
-
Class-based discriminatory animus — this is the hard part. You must show the conspiracy was motivated by prejudice against a protected class. Race is the most clearly established basis. Courts have also recognized religion, national origin, and sex in some circuits, but the law varies.
The Discriminatory Animus Problem
This requirement is what makes § 1985(3) difficult in practice. Even when race clearly played a role, proving it in court is challenging. Officers rarely announce their biases. You’ll typically need to build the case through:
- Statistical evidence — patterns of disproportionate enforcement against your racial group
- Statements by the defendants — slurs, racially charged comments (in reports, on body camera, to witnesses)
- Comparator evidence — showing that people of a different race were treated differently in similar situations
- Departmental patterns — history of complaints or findings of racial bias
- Context and timing — the circumstances surrounding the incident that suggest racial motivation
The Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
There’s a significant legal obstacle: many circuits hold that employees of a single entity (like officers in the same police department) cannot “conspire” with each other for purposes of § 1985(3). This is called the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. The theory is that a corporation can’t conspire with itself.
Some circuits have carved out exceptions — particularly when officers acted outside the scope of their employment or had independent personal stakes. But this doctrine can be a barrier if all the conspirators work for the same department.
When to Use § 1985(3)
Consider adding a § 1985(3) claim when:
- Race or another protected class clearly motivated the conduct — if you have evidence of slurs, racial profiling, or discriminatory patterns
- Private actors were involved — § 1983 can’t reach them, but § 1985(3) can
- Multiple people coordinated — the conspiracy element is already there in your facts
- You want to strengthen a § 1983 conspiracy claim — alleging both gives the jury two legal theories for the same coordinated conduct
When Not to Rely on It
Don’t make § 1985(3) your primary claim if:
- You can’t point to evidence of class-based motivation — courts will dismiss it early
- All defendants are officers in the same department — the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine may block you
- Your case is strong on § 1983 alone — adding a weak § 1985(3) claim can dilute your stronger arguments
Attorney’s Fees
If you prevail on a § 1985(3) claim, you can recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, just like with § 1983.