Evening star., 1953-12-10
CourtCan Act
In Many Ways
On RaceCase
Segregation Issue
Decision Expected
Before Next June
By Robert K. Welsh

Inc supreme Court could rule
on the public school segregation
cases in many different ways,
but some legal observers and lay
man guessers felt today its de-
cision will go to the heart Of
the constitutional issue.
A final decision, or decisions,
on five cases the court now has
under advisement may come by
next June. Three days of oral
argument ended late yesterday.
Attorneys attacking compulsory
separation of white and Negro
children in public schools in
the District, Virginia, South Car
olina, Kansas and Delaware,
want the court to strike down
such segregation as a violation
of the Federal Constitution.
Lawyers for the four States
deny that the 14th amendment
bans segregation, so long as edu-
cational facilities are substan-
TALLY equal for both races. They
defend segregation as a policy
matter to be determined by State
Legislatures, and not by the
courts. The District Corporation
CounSel'S Office contends that
congressional enactmentS, which
have applied to public schools
here for almost a century, clearly
require segregation, are consti-
tutional and can be changed
only by Congress.
Possible Alternatives.
Here are a few of the many
alternatives presumably avail
able to the Supreme Court:
1t could find that public school
segregation is constitutional if
the educational facilities and op-
portunitieS are absolutely equal
for both groups.
It could declare that such
segregation, even with every
thing else admittedly equal, is
unconstitutional because it pre-
vents equal protection or due
process of the law by discrim-
ination or classification solely on
the basis of race or color.
1t could decide that segrega-
ton is constitutional but that,
in specific instances, Negro chill
dren must Immediately be ad-
mitted to white schools until
given equal facilities elsewhere.
Individual Rulings Possible.
1t might hand down opinions
In the individual cases without
touching on the constitutional
ity of segregation as such. In a
State or school region, for
example, it might order integra-
ton because educational facili-
ties and opportunities are man.
ifeStly SO unequal that they could
not be made otherwise for years
to come.
1t could base a decision in a
particular case on the individual
merits, mootness or other par
ticular circumstances.
AS for the District, the court
conceivably could hold that
congressional enactments relat-
ing to schools here allow but do
not compel segregation. In the
event of such a ruling, the ap-
propriate District authorities
such as the Board of Education
members probably would have
to decide whether to keep or
abandon segregation.
Or the court, without reaching
the constitutional question, could
uphold the laws as requiring
segregation and leave the con-
tinuance of segregation in the
District entirely up to Congress.
Could Limit Own Power.
Similarly, so far as States are
concerned, the court could put a
limit on it's own power by agree
ing that under the 18th amend
ment it has no authority to in
terfere with State legislative ac-
tionS and attitudes on school
segregation.
1t could decree fatty that it
has power to interpret the 14th
amendment as prohibiting States
from having school segregation
or the fifth amendment as bar
ring Congress from legiSlating
segregation here.
1t could invalidate the sepa-
rate-but-equal doctrine followed
since a Supreme Court opinion
in 1896, but nevertheless, could
provide some time limit, such
as next September, or some
other reasonable" but indefinite
period for integration to be ac-
complished and enforced.
Most of those possibilities were
suggested or implied before argu-
ments closed late yesterday on
the cases from the District and
Delaware.
Statues May Be Key.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Milton D. Norman, maintained
that each one of the statutes
affecting the schools shows a
clear intent of Congress that
school segregation is mandatory
here.
This was vigorously disputed
by James M. Nabrit, who with
George E. C. Hayes represented
Negro parents of children denied
admission to the Sousa Junior
High School in 1850. Besides con-
tending that none of those laws
compelled or Endorsed segrega-
ton, and that the laws were un-
constitutional if they did, Mr..
Nabrit declared:
Compulsory segregation in
the District is against the policy
of the Federal Government and
the fifth amendment to the Con-
Stitution. To say that the intent
of Congress was to provide seq
regation in education. when