The article begins by noting that "hate crimes" can be defined as "those offenses committed because of the actual or perceived status characteristics of another, or alternatively, as crimes where the motive is the actual or perceived status characteristic of another, usually, but not necessarily, the crime's victim or target." The historical review of legal responses that have defined such crimes begins with the immediate post-Civil War period, when legal attempts were made to eradicate the harmful effects of racially based slavery. Subsequent reforms would be proposed in the wake of public outrage over lynchings, race riots, Klan terrorism, and contemporary hate crimes. The reforms designed to counter hate-based crime were not always immediately sustained, because they were often limited by a change in public opinion, political opposition, or judicial rebuke; however, cumulative changes over time had the effect of altering the social, legal, and political posture of the Nation. Federal law changed from being a tool for minority oppression to an instrument for minority protection. Still, the courts and political influences have limited the extent of the legal protection provided to minority groups by Federal law. Although the modern U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of hate-crime laws, it has also set limits on the restriction of hate speech and Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes. State legislatures, on the other hand, are free to pass hate-crime laws and include whatever status characteristics they deem appropriate, without the limitations that face Federal lawmakers. Forty-two States now have broadly applicable hate-crime laws that address crimes against persons because of race, religion, and national origin. The basis for the legal distinction given to crimes motivated by the perpetrator's hate for the group represented by the victim has been the nature of the harms caused by such crimes. This class of laws has been accepted by the public, lawmakers, and the courts. The debate continues, however, regarding who should be protected by these laws, when they should be applied, and which jurisdiction should be allowed to enforce them. 51 references