De Jure Rights and De Facto Control: Reconstruction, 1933 and the Sovereign Movement in History

De jure and de facto in law

Lawtopolis publishes this discussion for informational and educational purposes, and as an exercise of the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, belief and religion protected by the First Amendment. It sets out what each statute and decision says and what courts have done with it. It is not legal advice and does not recommend any course of action.

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient.

Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 180 (1995)

Courts use both terms precisely. A de jure government or officer holds office lawfully; a de facto one exercises power in fact. The de facto officer doctrine protects the public by keeping official acts valid when an appointment later proves defective. In Ryder, though, the Court refused to apply it against a person who had challenged the appointment in time.

Reconstruction (1865–1877)

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Act of 1867 divided ten former Confederate states into five military districts and required each to write a new constitution, approved by voters including Black men, and to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment before readmission (U.S. Senate Historical Office). In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 725 (1869), the Court held that “The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States,” and that secession was “absolutely null.” The states continued to exist throughout.

The Fourteenth Amendment created national citizenship for all persons born or naturalized here, including formerly enslaved people. It did not replace state citizenship; both exist together. See state citizen vs. U.S. citizen.

1933: gold and emergency banking

In 1933 the Emergency Banking Act, Executive Order 6102 and House Joint Resolution 192 ended private gold ownership and voided gold clauses. The Supreme Court upheld the gold-clause law for private contracts in Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. (1935) and held in Perry v. United States (1935) that Congress could not repudiate the government’s own gold bonds. Private gold ownership was restored on December 31, 1974, and Public Law 95-147 made gold clauses enforceable again in obligations issued after October 27, 1977. Courts have not recognized a “hidden remedy” of discharge by tender or setoff in these laws; see discharge by indorsement.

The tax protester and sovereign citizen labels

The essay says government labels such as “tax protester” and “sovereign citizen” are used to discredit people. Congress itself restricted one of them. Section 3707 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 prohibits the IRS from labeling taxpayers “Illegal Tax Protesters” or using similar designations; a 2019 Treasury Inspector General report explained that such labels “may stigmatize taxpayers and may cause employee bias.” The FBI published “Sovereign Citizens: A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement” in its Law Enforcement Bulletin in September 2011.

Courts continue to call many of these arguments frivolous and can impose sanctions for filings they find frivolous. At the same time, the First Amendment protects the right to hold, discuss and publish these views, and to gather with others who share them (NAACP v. Alabama, 1958; Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).

2008 to the present

The 2008 financial crisis led to the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 and renewed public interest in how banks create money and how mortgages are securitized. Some of the concerns raised in that period led to real changes, such as stricter rules on mortgage servicing and foreclosure documentation. Courts have continued to reject UCC-1 filings against oneself, private “bonds” drawn on the Treasury and unanswered-affidavit claims; see the theory review pages for each.

How to check the de jure and de facto claim yourself

If someone offers you a strategy built on de jure and de facto, ask for the court decisions that accepted it. In the decisions cited on this page, courts did not accept it. Instead, read the real statute or rule the claim cites, and then read how courts have applied it. Also, look at the cases listed above. They show what happens when people raise the argument in court. For a real dispute, talk to a licensed attorney in your state. You can start with our directory.

Sources and further reading

Official sources used on this page:

• static.case.law
• static.case.law
• senate.gov
• govinfo.gov
• leb.fbi.gov

Related reading on Lawtopolis:

• The Act of 1871, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the 1933 Emergency: What Each Law Did
• State Citizen vs. U.S. Citizen: Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship and "Non-Citizen Nationals"
• House Joint Resolution 192 (1933)
• Sovereignty of the People: Chisholm, Yick Wo, Perry and the Supremacy of the Constitution