布朗訴托皮卡教育局案
註釋

↑  Plessy v. Ferguson, 163（英语：） U.S. 537 (1896).
↑  平等權的依據為美國憲法第十四修正案第一項：「任何人，凡在合眾國出生或歸化合眾國並受其管轄者，均為合眾國及所居住之州的公民。任何州不得制定或執行任何剝奪合眾國公民特權或豁免權的法律；任何州亦不得未經正當法律程序而剝奪任何人的生命、自由或財產；亦不得對任何在其管轄下的人，拒絕給予平等的法律保護。」其中的「不得對任何在其管轄下的人，拒絕給予平等的法律保護。」即為美國憲法的平等權條款（），保障公民在法律上被平等對待，這也就是美國憲法中平等權的規範由來。原文請參考.   [2008-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2009-11-24）.
↑  公立學校指public school，僅限於中學和小學elementary school（英语：）。
↑  Atack, 頁 175.
↑  Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60（英语：） U.S. 393 (1856).
↑  請參照美國內戰起因
↑  Ayers, 頁 34.
↑  D. Grier Stephenson Jr. .   [2015-08-29]. （原始内容存档于2015-08-29）.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  ibid.
↑  Plessy v. Ferguson, 163（英语：） U.S. 537 (1896):
"...If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane."
↑  這些獲得勝訴的案件主要集中於密西西比州、馬里蘭州、奧克拉荷馬州、以及德克薩斯州等地。參考 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305（英语：） U.S. 337 (1938), Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 332（英语：） U.S. 631 (1948), 以及 Sweatt v. Painter, 339（英语：） U.S. 629 (1950), McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339（英语：） U.S. 637 (1950) 等案。
↑  Balkin, 頁 29.
↑  Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., 342（英语：） U.S. 350 (1952), Brown Case #1 — Summerton, South Carolina.
↑  參考 .   [2015-08-29]. （原始内容存档于2020-12-27） （英语）.
↑  Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337 (1952), Brown Case #2 — Prince Edward County, Virginia.
↑  參考 .   [2015-08-29]. （原始内容存档于2020-12-27） （英语）.
↑  Gebhart v. Belton, 33 Del. Ch. 144 (1952) Brown Case #3 — Claymont, Delaware.
↑  參考 .   [2015-08-29]. （原始内容存档于2020-12-27） （英语）.
1 2 3  .   [2015-08-29]. （原始内容存档于2021-03-08） （英语）.
↑  . 2004-05-12  [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2014-01-18） （英语）.
↑  本件訴訟中，之所以以奧利弗·布朗做為一群家長的代表原告是出於訴訟策略上的考量。全國有色人種促進協會的律師認為將來若需要上訴時，以奧利弗·布朗做為代表的原告可以使最高法院的大法官們較願意接收審理此案，這是因為相較於其他共同原告多出於單親家庭而言，Brown 有較完整的家庭。十三位原告分別是： Oliver Brown, Darlene Brown, Lena Carper, Sadie Emmanuel, Marguerite Emerson, Shirley Fleming, Zelma Henderson, Shirley Hodison, Maude Lawton, Alma Lewis, Iona Richardson, and Lucinda Todd.   Brown Foundation for Educational Equity, Excellence and Research, . 2004-04-11  [2015-08-29]. （原始内容存档于2021-01-21） （英语）. ;Ric Anderson. . 2004-05-09  [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2008年8月28日） （英语）.
↑  Balkin, 頁 32.
↑  Anderson. . 2004-05-09  [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2008年8月28日） （英语）.
↑  . 1951-08-03  [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2006年11月1日） （英语）.
↑  . 1951-08-03  [2015-08-29]. （原始内容存档于2020-12-27） （英语）.
↑  Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：） U.S. 497 (1954), Brown companion case — District of Columbia.
↑  參考 .   [2015-08-29]. （原始内容存档于2020-12-27） （英语）.
↑  Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：） U.S. 497 (1954)
↑  Infra note(Oral Arguments in Brown I).
↑  See Smithsonian, "Separate is Not Equal: Brown v. Board of Education 的存檔，存档日期2015-06-30.
↑  關於這一次法院所提出要求討論的幾個問題，請參考 Gebhart v. Belton, 345（英语：） U.S. 972 (1953) (Mem).
↑  "...strike down all types of class and caste legislation."
↑ 以上皆可參考言詞辯論內容全文的記載(PDF檔案)：
.   [2015-08-29]. （原始内容存档于2020-06-11） （英语）.
↑  Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：） U.S. 483 (1954):
"...Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty."
↑  Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：） U.S. 483 (1954):
"...In the instant cases, that question is directly presented.  Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors.  Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases.  We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.  Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."
↑  Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：） U.S. 483 (1954):
"...Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments.  Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society.  It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces.  It is the very foundation of good citizenship.  Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment.  In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.  Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms."
↑  Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：） U.S. 483 (1954):
"...In Sweatt v. Painter, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on ‘those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.’ In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ‘...his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.’Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:
'Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to (retard) the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial(ly) integrated school system.'"
↑  Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：） U.S. 483 (1954):
"...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
↑  因為第十四條修正案中，"nor deny...the equal protection of law."的主詞是 "State"，並沒有提到"United States" 或 "Federal"，因此平等權只有針對州規範。
↑  Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：） U.S. 497 (1954):
"...the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive."
↑  Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：） U.S. 497 (1954):
"...Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause."
↑  Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：） U.S. 497 (1954):
"...In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government."
↑  Brown v. Board of Education, 349（英语：） U.S. 294 (1955):
"...Because these cases arose under different local conditions and their disposition will involve a variety of local problems, we requested further argument on the question of relief.FN2 In view of the nationwide importance of the decision, we invited the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorneys General of all states requiring or permitting racial discrimination in public education to present their views on that question. The parties, the United States, and the States of Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Texas filed briefs and participated in the oral argument."
↑  Brown v. Board of Education, 349（英语：） U.S. 294 (1955):
"...Accordingly, we believe it appropriate to remand the cases to those courts. In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the courts will be guided by equitable principles." Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, Kan., 349（英语：） U.S. 294 (1955).
↑  Brown v. Board of Education, 349（英语：） U.S. 294 (1955).
↑  Brown v. Board of Education, 349（英语：） U.S. 294 (1955):
"...To effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with the constitutional principles set forth in our May 17, 1954, decision."
↑  理由在下述「對於教育的影響」將有說明。
↑  .   [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2018-02-10） （英语）.
↑  .   [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2017-05-04） （英语）.
↑  
Craig Rains. .   [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2008-05-09） （英语）.
↑  .   [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2009-06-15） （英语）.
↑  .   [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2010-04-20） （英语）.
↑  .   [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2013-08-15） （英语）.
↑  例如旅館、餐廳、戲院等地，參考 .   [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2006-10-10） （英语）.
↑  "...I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed...To the argument...that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minorities are." William Rehnquist.  (PDF). July 29, 30, 31, and August 1, 1986  [2008-06-18]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2008-09-21） （英语）.  请检查|date=中的日期值 (帮助)
↑  Justice William O. Douglas wrote: “In the original conference there were only four who voted that segregation in the public schools was unconstitutional. Those four were Black, Burton, Minton, and myself.”Bernard Schwartz. .   [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2020-10-30） （英语）. ; Likewise, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: “I have no doubt that if the segregation cases had reached decision last term, there would have been four dissenters — Vinson, Reed, Jackson, and Clark.” Id. Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary had a different view, calling Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to "smear the reputation of a great justice." See Alan Dershowitz（英语：） at Huffington Post. . 2005-09-25  [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-03） （英语）.   See also Felix Frankfurter on the death of Justice Vinson.
↑  Adam Liptak（英语：）. . 2005-09-11  [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2015-02-18） （英语）.
↑  William Rehnquist.  (PDF). July 29, 30, 31, and August 1, 1986  [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档 (PDF)于2018-11-20） （英语）.  请检查|date=中的日期值 (帮助)
↑  Missouri v. Jenkins, 515（英语：） U.S. 70 (1995).
↑  Missouri v. Jenkins, 515（英语：） U.S. 70 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring).
↑  Berger, 頁 132ff.
↑  Michael W. McConnell. . Virginia Law Review. May 1995, 81 (4): 947. ISSN 0042-6601.
↑  Hirabayashi v. United States, 320（英语：） U.S. 81 (1943).
↑  Balkin, 頁 97.
↑  Bork, 頁 82.
↑  . 2004-05-17  [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2004-06-05） （英语）.