Document: 378 U.S. 153 84 S.Ct. 1693 12 L.Ed.2d 771 James Russell ROBINSON et al., Appellants,v.STATE OF FLORIDA. No. 60. Argued Oct. 15, 1963. Decided June 22, 1964. Alfred I. Hopkins, Miami Beach, Fla., for appellants. Jack Greenberg, New York City, George R. Georgieff, Tallahassee, appellee. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered opinion 1 A criminal information filed in a Florida state court charged that these eighteen appellants had violated s 509.141 Statutes, F.S.A. remaining restaurant after manager requested them to leave.1 The material facts are not dispute and show: Shell's City Restaurant, which is one nineteen departments Department Store Miami, had, at time appellants' arrest, policy refusing serve Negroes. Appellants, Negroes whites, went group into seated themselves tables. In accordance with restaurant's policy, told they would be served. called police and, accompanied policeman, each table, again served, leave. They refused. officers then advised leave, when persisted their refusal placed all under arrest. 2 At trial, management explained that, while were welcomed customers store's other departments, serving 'very detrimental our business' because objections white customers. After been brought out during examination State's witnesses, moved directed verdict on ground prosecution, conviction State this evidence amount discrimination against account color, thereby violating Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee equal protection laws. This motion was denied. calling no trial stayed adjudication guilt imposition sentence probation, authorized § 948.01(3) On appeal, various jurisdictional rulings appellate courts,2 Supreme Court affirmed, holding statute convicted nondiscriminatory. 144 So.2d 811. case properly here appeal 28 U.S.C. 1257(2), we noted probable jurisdiction. 374 803, 83 1692, 10 1029. 3 do reach broad question whether Amendment its own force forbids arrest prosecute those who, having asked refuse so. For there additional circumstances which, think, call reversal Peterson v. Greenville, 373 244, 1119, 323. petitioners trespass violation city ordinance lunch counter remained over manager's protest. time, however, existed another Greenville made it unlawful restaurants meals persons colored same room or table counter. argued based his personal preference, did 'state action' forbidden Amendment. But held must decided basis what required people do, wanted do. We said: 4 'When agency passes law compelling discriminate race, processes employed way enforces mandated law, such palpable cannot saved attempting separate mental urges discriminators.' U.S., 248, S.Ct., 1121. 5 See also Lombard Louisiana, 267, 1122, 338. 6 present case, arrested tried Board Health effect regulation, adopted 'authority Legislature' applicable restaurants, provided 'where accommodated' toilet lavatory rooms provided.3 month before arrested, issued 'Food Drink Services' manual, regulations. manual said 'basic requirement,' 7 'Separate facilities shall sex race served establishment.' 8 While regulations directly expressly forbid both together, certainly embody putting burdens upon any serves oth races, bound discourage two races together. Of course, action, kind falls within proscription Equal Protection Clause Amendment, may about through administrative regulatory agencies just legislature. Cf. supra, 273, 1125. Here conclude has become involved significant extent bringing segregation convictions reflect therefore violate 9 judgment reversed remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. It so ordered. 11 DOUGLAS reverse below reasons stated Bell Maryland, 377 242, 1823. HARLAN, considering himself 323, acquiesces says person authority (among places named statute) have right remove cause removed 'who, management, whom detrimental' serve. first give notice, orally writing, guest depart. provides, '(A)ny who remain attempt * being requested, aforesaid, depart therefrom, guilty misdemeanor *.' 132 (Supreme Florida); (District Appeal Florida). Sanitary Code, c. VII, 6. substance regulation reissued 26, 1962, now part Administrative 170C, 8.06.

Category: 1