The Cleveland McDonald's boycott in 1969 2025 Oct 15    case.edu
The Golden Arches' first big surge in popularity coincided with the civil rights era in United States. And when residents in the predominantly black central urban area of Cleveland pointed out that none of the area's massively successful five McDonald's franchises were owned by local, black residents but rather by distant white owners, they organized a boycott.

And that's the story as presented by this Case Western Encyclopedia of Cleveland History article. And it's probably true. But further down the page, they admit that the boycott was organized by none other than "Rabbi" David Hill, but only on his biography admit to him being a conman cult leader infamous for belligerent negotiation tactics against McDonald's corporate who also swindled those supporting him. And when convicted of his crimes, he fled the country.

So what was the boycott? Was it tapping into real community resentment? Or was it all the ploy of a crazed conman?

An American Lynching: Robert Hall 2025 Sep 16    julianjohnsonlaw.com
The story of Robert Hall's death in the early 20th century is horrific: American racism at its most extreme. A wealthy black man living in Georgia targeted by the authorities for harassment, torture, and death, there was no ambiguity in who perpetrated Robert Hall's murder, Baker County Sheriff M. Claude Screws. In a case that got all the way to the Supreme Court, the sheriff, via an all-white jury, was acquitted. Not of killing Hall, for that the sheriff wasn't tried for some reason I do not understand, but 'not guilty' of "violating Hall's constitutional rights." What a crock of shit. In case you're wondering what the local community thought of this, Screws went on to not only be reelected, but to be later made into a state senator. The linked article claims that while Hall's family saw no justice, the net result was, for legal precedent reasons, an overall win.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Screws v. United States became the legal foundation for modern federal civil rights enforcement. It opened the door for police officers to be held accountable under federal law for violating constitutional rights.

Yet this Legal Clarity article provides more nuance (emphasis mine):

The legacy of Screws v. United States affirmed the federal government’s authority to prosecute state and local officials for civil rights violations committed “under color of law.” By refusing to strike down the federal law, the Court preserved a tool for federal intervention against official misconduct. This was a significant affirmation of federal power in protecting individual liberties against state-level abuse.

However, the “specific intent” standard established by the Court made these federal prosecutions difficult to win. Proving that an officer acted with the specific purpose of violating a known constitutional right became a formidable barrier for federal prosecutors. This high standard of proof was an impediment to justice for victims of civil rights abuses, as it allowed defendants to claim ignorance of the law as a defense.

For decades following the 1945 decision, the Screws standard shaped the strategy of federal civil rights cases. While the precedent upheld the government’s power in theory, in practice it made securing convictions a challenging endeavor. The ruling highlighted the tension between holding officials accountable and protecting them from prosecution based on vague legal standards, a tension that continues to be debated.

There is still no justice for Robert Hall.