Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

7 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

Edward  Cty.,  O. T.  1954,  No.  3,  p.  208  (“What  is  worst  of 
all, in our opinion, you impair the public school system of 
Virginia and the victims will be the children of both races, 
we  think  the  Negro  race  worse  than  the  white  race,  be-
cause  the  Negro  race  needs  it  more  by  virtue  of  these 
disadvantages under which they have labored.  We are up 
against  the  proposition:  What  does  the  Negro  profit  if  he 
procures  an  immediate  detailed  decree  from  this  Court 
now  and  then  impairs  or  mars  or  destroys  the  public
school system in Prince Edward County”).2 

Unmoved  by  this  sky-is-falling  argument,  we  held  that 
segregation violates the principle of equality enshrined in 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  See  Brown,  supra,  at  495 
(“[I]n the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate 
but equal’ has no place.  Separate educational facilities are 
inherently unequal”); see also Allen v. School Bd. of Prince 
Edward Cty., 249 F. 2d 462, 465  (CA4 1957) (per curiam)
(“The  fact  that  the  schools  might  be  closed  if  the  order 
were  enforced  is  no  reason  for  not  enforcing  it.    A  person 

—————— 

2 Similar  arguments  were  advanced  unsuccessfully  in  other  cases  as 
well.  See, e.g., Brief for Respondents in Sweatt v.  Painter, O. T. 1949, 
No.  44,  pp.  94–95    (hereinafter  Brief  for  Respondents  in  Sweatt)  (“[I]f
the power to separate the students were terminated, . . . it would be as
a bonanza to the private white schools of the State, and it would mean
the migration out of the schools and the turning away from the public
schools of the influence and support of a large number of children and
of the parents of those children . . . who are the largest contributors to
the cause of public education, and whose financial support is necessary 
for the continued progress of public education. . . . Should the State be 
required to mix the public schools, there is no question but that a very 
large group of students would transfer, or be moved by their parents, to
private  schools  with  a  resultant  deterioration  of  the  public  schools” 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted));  Brief  for  Appellees  in  Briggs  v. 
Elliott,  O. T.  1952,  No.  101,  p. 27  (hereinafter  Brief  for  Appellees  in 
Briggs)  (“[I]t  would  be  impossible  to  have  sufficient  acceptance  of  the 
idea of mixed groups attending the same schools to have public educa-
tion on that basis at all . . . .  [I]t would eliminate the public schools in 
most, if not all, of the communities in the State”).