## Facts

- Vietnamese refugees in the Galveston Bay, Texas shrimping industry faced hostility from some local white fishermen and Ku Klux Klan members.
- Plaintiffs were the Vietnamese Fishermen’s Association and individual Vietnamese fishermen; the case proceeded as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action for all Vietnamese fishermen in the Galveston Bay area.
- Defendants included the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (including its Texas leader Louis Beam), unknown Klan members, an organization of local fishermen, and associated individuals.
- Plaintiffs alleged a coordinated campaign to force Vietnamese fishermen out of the shrimping industry through threats, intimidation, and public displays of force.
- Evidence at the preliminary-injunction hearing included Klan rallies featuring racially charged speeches and symbolic violence (including a boat burned in effigy), armed group activities on boats, and paramilitary-style training involving weapons and tactics.
- Plaintiffs relied on seasonal shrimping income and maintained licenses, boats, and necessary business relationships for fuel, docking, supplies, and sales.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence that defendants sought to disrupt these business relationships by pressuring or frightening third parties into refusing to deal with Vietnamese fishermen.
- The suit was filed shortly before shrimp season began, and plaintiffs sought immediate injunctive relief to prevent violence and economic coercion.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on claims that defendants conspired, on racial grounds, to interfere with plaintiffs’ rights to contract and to pursue their occupation under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985(3), and 1986.
2. Whether plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success that defendants’ coordinated exclusionary conduct constituted an unlawful restraint of trade under Sherman Act § 1.
3. Whether plaintiffs faced irreparable injury absent an injunction, given threatened violence and loss of the short shrimping season and business viability.
4. Whether the balance of equities and the public interest favored restricting defendants’ conduct despite asserted expressive or associational justifications.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction in substantial part after applying the federal four-factor test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest).
- The injunction barred defendants from engaging in or inciting violence or intimidation directed at Vietnamese fishermen.
- The injunction prohibited armed boat patrols, threats, and related intimidating conduct aimed at deterring Vietnamese fishermen from shrimping.
- The injunction prohibited interference with plaintiffs’ contractual and business relationships in the shrimping industry.
- The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986, Sherman Act § 1, and Texas tort law for intentional interference with contractual relations.
- Other theories (including certain constitutional and racketeering claims) were not the basis for preliminary relief and were denied or deferred for later merits determination.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires showing (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent relief, (3) a balance of harms favoring the movant, and (4) consistency with the public interest.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1981 protects the equal right to make and enforce contracts without racial discrimination, including protection against racially motivated intimidation that deters contracting through coercion of third parties.
- 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) may reach a private conspiracy motivated by racial animus that targets a defined class and aims to deprive class members of equal legal rights; 42 U.S.C. § 1986 may impose liability for knowing failure to prevent such a conspiracy when prevention was possible.
- Sherman Act § 1 is implicated where actors combine to exclude competitors and restrain trade through coercive, noncompetitive tactics rather than legitimate market competition.
- Threats and intimidation that disrupt existing or prospective business relationships can support liability for intentional interference with contractual relations under Texas law and justify injunctive relief when legal remedies are inadequate.
- Injunctive relief may restrict violent or intimidating conduct notwithstanding claims of political motivation; advocacy does not immunize agreements or actions that threaten or accomplish unlawful deprivation of others’ rights.

## Conclusion

The court issued broad preliminary injunctive relief to prevent Klan-linked and allied fishermen’s coordinated intimidation and economic coercion aimed at excluding Vietnamese shrimpers, finding likely success under federal civil-rights and antitrust theories and concluding that threatened violence and loss of a seasonal livelihood constituted irreparable harm outweighing defendants’ asserted justifications.


Vietnamese Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 518 F. Supp. 993 (S.D. Tex. 1981)