Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

involuntary servitude

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 219 U.S. 219 - Alonzo Bailey v. State of Alabama · 1911Most cited · 632 citing opinions

broader than slavery

The words involuntary servitude have a 'larger meaning than slavery.' ... The plain intention was to abolish slavery of whatever name and form and all its badges and incidents; to render impossible any state of bondage; to make labor free, by prohibiting that control by which the personal service of one man is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit, which is the essence of involuntary servitude.

How the Supreme Court has restated “involuntary servitude”

19111920193019401944 most cited: 219 U.S. 219 - Alonzo Bailey v. State of Alabama (1911)
first stateddeparted

Each Supreme Court definition of “involuntary servitude,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “involuntary servitude”

1900192519501975200020252030169

Court decisions citing the 3 opinions that defined “involuntary servitude” — 1,111 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 3 definitions, chronological · 1911–1944

  1. 1916·240 U.S. 328 - Butler v. Perry[p13]· cited 268×

    The term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers.

  2. 1944·322 U.S. 4 - Pollock v. Williams[p22]· cited 217×

    no state can make the quitting of work any component of a crime, or make criminal sanctions available for holding unwilling persons to labor

    Antipeonage Act scope