United States v. Reynolds

1. This case describes a classic convict leasing transaction. There were thousands of these transactions entered into in the South, mostly towards the end of the 19th Century.

2. An argument is made that, functionally, this is no different than the state putting the convict to work, which would not violate the 13th amendment due to the "except as a punishment for crime" provision. And presumably it would violate it no more if the purpose of the work was to benefit a private party that had bestowed some benefit on the state. So why is the practice of convict leasing so much worse?

3. Could you argue based on United States v. Reynolds that private prisons requiring prisoners to do work (yard work, kitchen work, etc.) violates the 13th amendment? Is there anything different about the private prison impelling the inmate to clean the warden's office than with convict leasing such as described here?

Supreme Court of the United States

235 U.S. 133, 59 L. Ed. 162, 35 S. Ct. 86, SCDB 1914-006, 1914 U.S. LEXIS 1009

Nos. 478, 479

1914-11-30

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.