Document: 373 U.S. 244 83 S.Ct. 1133 10 L.Ed.2d 323 James Richard PETERSON et al., Petitioners,v.CITY OF GREENVILLE. Rudolph LOMBARD Petitioners, v. STATE LOUISIANA. GOBER CITY BIRMINGHAM. John Thomas AVENT NORTH CAROLINA. F. L. SHUTTLESWORTH and C. Billups, Nos. 71, 58, 66, 11 67. Supreme Court of the United States May 20, 1963 Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S.C., for petitioners. Theodore A. Snyder, Jr., Greenville, respondent. Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., States, as amicus curiae, by special leave Court. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered opinion 1 The petitioners were convicted in Recorder's City South Carolina, violating trespass statute that State.* Each was sentenced to pay a fine $100 or lieu thereof serve 30 days jail. An appeal Greenville County dismissed, Carolina affirmed. 239 S.C. 298, 122 S.E.2d 826. We granted certiorari consider substantial federal questions presented record. 370 935, 82 1577, 8 806. 2 are Negro boys girls who, on August 9, 1960, entered S. H. Kress store seated themselves at lunch counter purpose, they testified, being served. When manager observed sitting counter, he 'had one (his) * employees call Police Department turn off lights state closed.' A captain police two other officers responded proceeding patrol car where met policemen agents who had preceded them there. In presence agents, 'announced closed would everyone leave' area. petitioners, been five minutes, remained promptly arrested. searched, both taken headquarters. 3 did not request arrest petitioners; asked because integrated service 'contrary local customs' segregation counters violation following ordinance requiring separation races restaurants: 4 'It shall be unlawful any person owning, managing controlling hotel, restaurant, cafe, eating house, boarding-house similar establishment furnish meals white persons colored same room, table, counter; provided, however, may served room separate facilities furnished. Separate interpreted mean: 5 '(a) utensils dishes serving food, all which distinctly marked some appropriate color scheme otherwise; 6 '(b) tables, booths; 7 '(c) distance least thirty-five feet maintained between area served; '(d) referred subsection (c) above vacant but occupied usual display merchandise found business concern nature; '(e) facility used cleaning furnished races.' Code 1953, amended 1958, § 31—8. 9 conceded clean, well dressed, unoffensive conduct, sat quietly designed accommodate 59 persons. described his national chain 15 20 departments, selling over 10,000 items. He stated general public invited do patronage Negroes solicited departments than counter. Petitioners maintain has denied rights free speech, their activity protected First Fourteenth Amendments require showing gave notice authority when leave. also assert have deprived equal protection laws secured against action Amendment. need decide only last thus raised. evidence this case establishes beyond doubt management's decision exclude from made Negroes. It cannot disputed under out decisions 'private conduct abridging individual does no violence Equal Protection Clause unless significant extent State its manifestations become involved it.' Burton Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 715, 722, 81 856, 860, 45; Turner Memphis, 369 350, 805, 762. 12 here an agency State, provided whether restaurant is operated desegregated basis reserved it. commanded particular result, it saved itself power determine result thereby 'to extent' 'become involved' it, and, fact, removed sphere private choice. effectively determined place left with choice own must segregate patrons. management, deciding Negroes, precisely what city law required. 13 Consequently these convictions stand, even assuming, respondent contends, acted independently existence ordinance. will heard make contention support convictions. For effect, deny, enforcing passed State. passes compelling discriminate race, State's criminal processes employed way enforces discrimination mandated law, such palpable Amendment attempting mental urges discriminators. 14 Reversed. HARLAN, concurring No. dissenting whole part 11, 16 These racial cases, 68, Wright Georgia, 284, 1240, I join Court, argued together. Four arise 'sitin' demonstrations involve students1 violations laws, statutes, (Peterson, 244, 1133), Louisiana (Lombard, 267, 1122), Alabama (Gober, 374, 1311), North (Avent, 375, 1311) respectively. rests court findings, my supported evidence, several refused move 'white' situated premises privately owned department stores after having duly requested so management. involves conviction ministers inciting, aiding, abetting trespasses (Shuttlesworth, 262, 1130). 17 cases question long-established rule reaches action. Civil Rights Cases, 109 3, 18, 27 L.Ed. 835. And suggest action, denying protection, mere enforcement relation establishments will, chosen race.2 Judicial course end inquiry. ultimate substantive there '(S)tate character' (Civil supra, 21) character involvement arbitrary should held responsible discrimination. 18 This limitation scope prohibitions serves vital functions our system. Underlying involving alleged denial ostensibly clash competing constitutional claims high order: liberty equality. Freedom chose associates neighbors, use dispose property sees fit, irrational, arbitrary, capricious, unjust personal relations things entitled large measure governmental interference. overridden, name equality, if strictures applied without distinction. Also inherent concept values federalism, recognition areas upon lay heavy hand properly more precise instruments authority. 19 My differences relate primarily treatment issue broad strides proceeded setting aside cases. discrete results. I. THE CASE (NO. 71). 21 case, finds circumstance still books ordinance, 246, 1120, segregated places. holds rendered unconstitutional, quite irrespective actually influenced rationale compelled restaurateurs through say, statute, Kress' fact product untrammeled said follow removes operation 'from choice' 'the enforces' 248, 1121. 22 alluring but, view, fallacious proposition. Clearly might preferred reasons entirely along whites, dispositive becomes played segregate. That fact. 23 Preliminarily, understand ordinance's removal right operate renders owner agent ipso facto act Such theory carry consequence operating subject Act suit excluded unconstitutional (cf. Monroe Pape, 167, 473, 492)—an incongruous loath infer intends. purely enterprise. sense repository power,' Home Tel. & Co. Los Angeles, 227 278, 286, 33 312, 314, 57 510, makes delegate prohibitory affecting business. intimate anything contrary. 24 majority's approach untenable. Although restaurateur operate, pleases, untouched, truth effectually deprives him like continues exist. can enforced resort 'self-help' certainly greatly diluted right, indeed totally destroyed. 25 individual's restrict property, however unregenerate exercise thought, lies reach dilution virtual elimination justified either premise hasten formal repeal outworn ground facilitate proof kind. Those already just deserts many communities longer universal widespread practice unknown. Of say never play decisive role making. But each remain viable, be: discriminatory exclusion law? Cf. Truax Raich, 33, 36 7, 60 131.3 inexorable lays down reflects insufficient reckoning demands history. 26 suggested effect instances 'attempting discriminators', mind novel see Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), §§ 385—393, requirement presents barriers situation. would, judgment, prima facie invalid casting burden proving solely circumstances one. which, opinion, handed doctrine recognized evidentiary rules dictate. Its application calls reversal At trial shown adduced rebutting indicating manager's wholly All score testimony. Asked said: 'It's contrary customs (sic) it's discussed' (quite evidently referring ordinance). (Emphasis added.) suffices establish leads me judgment II. 28 58). 29 'sit-ins' McCrory New Orleans, Louisiana, carries step further. Neither nor Orleans facilities. instance announcements Superintendent Mayor set forth Court's 1122, issued shortly 'sit-in' first begun city. Treating equivalent employment 'trespass' again regard announcements. addition criticism Peterson ruling, further factors untenable case. 31 1. compared commanding announcement addressed particular, citizenry generally. They press proprietors facilities; rather simply urged whites insist nonsegregated places obtained. short, far record shows, could done sanctions official constraint. 32 2. seems take attempt perpetuate Orleans. think read effort officials preserve peace reasonably regarded highly charged atmosphere. fair tenor exhortations. If nothing vote affirm want sufficient protection. There is, indicate advance collaboration respect episodes. judge permit defense counsel pursue inquiry line, although perfectly clear purpose participation clients store. shutting line prejudicial error. 34 reason vacate remand new explored. III. 35 66). concerns different Birmingham, Alabama. Birmingham places.4 37 necessary before us, dealt per curiam reversal. Appeals petitioners' claim stating 'there pleading, restaurants. prosecution property.' Gober 41 Ala.App. 313, 317, 133 So.2d 697, 701. 38 This, hand, mean specially pleaded defense. then faced necessity adequate preclude consideration significance view exists refers us (1958), Tit. 225, matters civil case,5 statement '(t)his quasi nature, governing appeals,' Ala.App., 315, So.2d, 699. 39 On sentence Appeals' statement—'The property'—it shared apparent misapprehension materiality laid statute.6 matter lent that, 429(1), judicially noticeable, address bearing prosecution, 'matter defense' within meaning 225.7 40 muddy posture impossible judgments supportable independent ground. Because this, light views expressed U.S., pp. 250 253, S.Ct., 250—253, called for. First, parties afforded opportunity obtain clarification procedural holding respecting procedurally foreclosed considering adequacy Second, fully To ends below Appeals. IV. 11). 42 turns Durham, took place, ordinance.8 affirming proceeded, erroneous assumption existed. 253 N.C. 580, 118 47. 43 agree returned consideration. See Patterson Alabama, 294 600, 55 575, 79 1082. disagreeing go back Peterson, dissent V. 67). 44 clergymen, Shuttlesworth Birmingham. 45 1311, relying unassailable proposition aiding someone innocent act', 265, 1132, fall those difficulty based premise. Billups merely inciting generally lacks incitement Gober.9 Hence here. 46 are, why, stand. As shows brought students Shuttlesworth's home while talked. Billups' bringing student, him, approved disapproved do. lacking offense Thompson Louisville, 362 199, 80 624, 654. 47 situation Shuttlesworth. Given (1) current prevalence throughout South,10 (2) commonly understood phrase 'sit-down' designate form protest typically resulted offense, (3) calling volunteers get volunteered 'out jail,' constitutionally impermissible find demonstrate despite objections owners, engage trespass. 48 Nevertheless matter. denials depending event 'state action' issue. Certainly punishable. dealing we realm expression, punish likelihood protected. Garner 368 157, 196—207, 268—274, 207 (concurring writer). ignore factor unduly inhibit freedom though liability ordinarily depend incited.11 49 Were able incited immune outright ordinances (supra, 251—253), believe 'substantiality' less courts. therefore trial. 50 results sound legal principles require. S.C.Code, 1952 (Cum.Supp.1960), 16—388: 'Entering warned failing requested. 'Any person: '(1) Who cause good accuse enters into dwelling another person, warned, six months preceding, '(2) Who, so, fails refuses, excuse, immediately ordered possession, representative. 'Shall, conviction, fined hundred dollars, imprisoned thirty days.' Except student participated demonstration. Lombard, 1122. admission prevented management excluding counters. finding Amendment, relied alien employee discharged employer latter's fear penalties noncompliance prohibiting certain number aliens. stressed importance illegal interference compulsion *.' Id., 38, 9. General (1944), 369: food city, people separated solid partition extending floor upward seven higher, entrance street compartment.' 'The defendant plead pleas unnecessary repetition; rely plaintiff's defense.' printed 24—26. connection relating actions apply phases prosecution. appeals type pleading 225 cited Appeals, 316, 699, shed question, relevant Durham (1947), c. 13, 42: 'In licensed restaurants, 'weenie shops' permitted with, eat allowed congregate, rooms accommodation race. constructed wood, plaster brick material, ceiling. Any section shall, ten dollars day's constitute distinct offense.' testimony introduced Davis (two defendants case), 'other persons' 'were present room' tried trespass, attended meeting house. meeting' 'sitins' day occurred. reveal 'sit-ins,' others thereafter demonstrations. court's 'you thinks misused misled Ordinance' sentencing defendants, (the trials groups conducted seriatim judge, until completed). crimes charged. Pollitt, Dime Store Demonstrations: Events Legal Problems Sixty Days. Duke L.J. (1960) 317—337. Apparently courts judicial See, e.g., Green Mutual Benefit Health Accident Ass'n, 267 Ala. 56, 99 694, 72 A.L.R.2d 549. Wechsler, Jones Korn, Treatment Inchoate Crimes Model Penal American Law Institute: Attempt, Solicitation, Conspiracy, 61 Col.L.Rev. 571, 621—628 (1961).

Category: 1