Legal Document

347 U.S. 483 74 Supreme Court Reporter 686 98 L.Ed. 873 BROWN et al.v.BOARD OF EDUCATION TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KAN., al. BRIGGS versus ELLIOTT DAVIS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD PRINCE EDWARD VA., GEBHART BELTON Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10. Reargued Dec. 7, 8, 9, 1953. Decided May 17, 1954. [Syllabus from pages 483-484 intentionally omitted] Number 1: Mr. Robert L. Carter, New York City, for appellants Brown and others. Paul E. Wilson, Topeka, Kan., appellees Board of Education Topeka 4: Messrs. Spottswood Robinson III, Thurgood Marshall, Briggs Davis John W. Davis, T. Justin Moore, Judge Lindsay Almond, Jr., Richmond, Va., Elliott County School Prince Edward 1 Asst. Atty. Gen. Lee Rankin United States amicus curiae by special leave Court. 10: 2 or Haw. Hawai‘i Reports KFH45 A2 Albert Young, Wilmington, Del., petitioners Gebhart 3 Jack Greenberg, respondents Belton 4 Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion 5 These cases come to us Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware. They are premised on different facts local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.1 6 In each cases, minors Negro race, through representatives, seek aid courts obtaining admission public schools community nonsegregated basis. instance, they have been denied attended white children under laws requiring permitting segregation according race. This was alleged deprive plaintiffs equal protection Fourteenth Amendment. other than Delaware case, three-judge federal district court relief so-called 'separate equal' doctrine announced Plessy Ferguson, 163 537, 16 1138, 41 256. Under that doctrine, equality treatment is accorded when races provided substantially facilities, even though these facilities be separate. adhered ordered admitted because superiority schools. 7 The contend segregated not 'equal' cannot made 'equal,' hence deprived laws. Because obvious importance presented, took jurisdiction.2 Argument heard 1952 Term, reargument Term certain questions propounded Court.3 8 Reargument largely devoted circumstances surrounding adoption Amendment 1868. It covered exhaustively Congress, ratification states, then existing practices racial segregation, views proponents opponents discussion our own investigation convince that, although sources cast some light, it enough resolve problem with which we faced. At best, inconclusive. most avid post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them remove all distinctions among 'all persons born naturalized States.' Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic both letter spirit wished limited effect. What others Congress state legislatures had mind determined any degree certainty. 9 An additional reason inconclusive nature Amendment's history, respect schools, status education at time.4 South, movement toward free supported general taxation, yet taken hold. hands private groups. Negroes almost nonexistent, practically race illiterate. fact, forbidden law states. Today, contrast, many achieved outstanding success arts sciences well business professional world. true school time advanced further North, effect Northern generally ignored congressional debates. Even conditions did approximate those today. curriculum usually rudimentary; ungraded rural areas; term three months year states; compulsory attendance virtually unknown. As consequence, surprising there should so little history relating its education. 10 first construing Amendment, decided shortly after adoption, interpreted proscribing state-imposed discriminations against race.5 "separate equal" make appearance until 1896 case supra, involving transportation.6 American since labored over half century. Court, six field education.7 Cumming Richmond County, 175 528, 20 197, 44 262, Gong Lum Rice, 275 78, 48 91, 72 172, validity itself challenged.8 more recent graduate level, inequality found specific benefits enjoyed students same educational qualifications. State Missouri ex rel. Gaines Canada, 305 337, 59 232, 83 208; Sipuel Regents University Oklahoma, 332 631, 68 299, 92 247; Sweatt Painter, 339 629, 70 s.Ct. 848, 94 1114; McLaurin Oklahoma Regents, 637, 851, 1149. none necessary re-examine grant plaintiff. And expressly reserved decision whether Ferguson held inapplicable 11 instant directly presented. Here, unlike findings below involved equalized, being buildings, curricula, qualifications salaries teachers, 'tangible' factors.9 Our decision, therefore, turn merely comparison tangible factors cases. We must look instead 12 approaching problem, clock back 1868 adopted, written. consider light full development present place life throughout Nation. Only way can if deprives 13 perhaps important function governments. Compulsory great expenditures demonstrate recognition democratic society. required performance basic responsibilities, service armed forces. very foundation good citizenship. Today principal instrument awakening child cultural values, preparing him later training, helping adjust normally his environment. days, doubtful may reasonably expected succeed he opportunity an Such opportunity, where has undertaken provide it, right available terms. 14 presented: Does solely basis physical equal, minority group opportunities? believe does. 15 supra (339 850), finding could opportunities, relied large part 'those qualities incapable objective measurement greatness school.' 853), treated like students, again resorted intangible considerations: '* * ability study, engage discussions exchange and, general, learn profession.' considerations apply added force grade high To separate similar age generates feeling inferiority affect hearts minds unlikely ever undone. separation opportunities stated Kansas nevertheless felt compelled rule plaintiffs: 'Segregation colored detrimental upon children. impact greater sanction law; policy separating denoting negro group. A sense affects motivation learn. Segregation law, tendency (retard) mental would receive racial(ly) integrated system.'10 17 Whatever extent psychological knowledge amply modern authority.11 Any language contrary rejected. 18 conclude no place. Separate inherently unequal. Therefore, hold similarly situated whom actions brought are, complained of, guaranteed disposition makes unnecessary such also violates Due Process Clause Amendment.12 19 class actions, wide applicability variety formulation decrees presents problems considerable complexity. On reargument, appropriate necessarily subordinated primary question—the constitutionality now denial order assistance parties formulating decrees, will restored docket, requested argument Questions previously Term.13 Attorney General invited participate. Attorneys states permitted appear amici request do September 15, 1954, submission briefs October 1954.14 ordered. 21 Cases docket decrees. Education, elementary residing Topeka. action District enjoin enforcement statute permits, does require, cities 15,000 population maintain students. Kan.Gen.Stat.1949, § 72—1724. Pursuant authority, elected establish Other community, however, operated convened 28 Code KF62 §§ 2281 2284, Annotated KF65 U5 2281, children, ground transportation, teachers. F.Supp. 797. here direct appeal 1253, 1253. Carolina Elliott, Clarendon County. Eastern provisions constitution statutory code require whites S.C.Const. Article XI, 7; S.C.Code 1942, 5377. relief. inferior defendants begin immediately equalize facilities. But sustained contested admis- sion during equalization program. 529. vacated Court's judgment remanded purpose court's report filed concerning progress 342 350, 327, 96 392. remand, substantial except buildings proceeding rectify well. 103 920. Virginia Board, Va.Const. 140; Va.Code 1950, 22—221. plant, forthwith curricula transportation 'proceed reasonable diligence dispatch remove' plant. But, 337. Belton, Castle Chancery Del.Const. X, 2; Del.Rev.Code, 1935, 2631, Del.C. 141. Chancellor gave immediate only teacher pupil-teacher ratio, extracurricular activities, distance travel. Del.Ch., 87 Atlantic Reporter, 2nd Series 862. results (see note 10, infra), rest ground. page 865. Chancellor's decree affirmed Delaware, intimated, might able obtain modification accomplished. 91 137, 152. defendants, contending erred ordering applied certiorari. writ granted, 344 891, 73 213, 97 689. plaintiffs, who successful below, submit cross-petition. 3, Id., 141, 124, 152, 345 972, 1118, 1388. participated Terms curiae. For study prior see Butts Cremin, History Culture (1953), Pts. I, II: Cubberley, Public (1934 ed.), chapters II—XII. current described 269—275; 288—339, 408—431; Knight, (1922), VIII, IX. See Ex. Doc. 315, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. (1871). Although demand followed pattern North gain momentum about 1850, twenty years North. reasons somewhat slower (e.g., character regional attitudes assistance) explained 408—423. country whole, particularly War stopped 427—428. low sections country, before War, Beale, Freedom Teaching Schools (1941), 112—132, 175—195. adopted 1918 563—565. re Slaughter-House Cases, 1873, Wall. 36, 67—72, 394; Strauder West 1880, 100 303, 307—308, 25 664. 'It ordains shall person life, liberty, property, without due process deny within jurisdiction declaring black white; persons, white, stand States, regard whose amendment primarily designed, discrimination color? words amendment, true, prohibitory, contain implication positive immunity, right, valuable race,—the exemption unfriendly legislation distinctively colored, discriminations, implying civil society, lessening security enjoyment rights enjoy, steps towards reducing condition subject race.' Rives, 1879, 313, 318, 667; Ex parte 339, 344—345, 676. apparently originated Roberts City Boston, Cush. 198, Mass. 206, upholding attack violative constitutional guarantee equality. Boston eliminated 1855. Acts 1855, chapter elsewhere persisted communities years. apparent long nationwide one sectional concern. Berea College Kentucky, 1908, 211 45, 29 33, 53 81. taxpayers sought injunction defendant board discontinue operation resumed Similarly, plaintiff, Chinese descent, contended authorities misapplied classifying attend school. factors. 797, 798. 'promptly faith comply decree.' 920, 921. noted program already 'afoot progressing,' 341; then, advised, General's brief completed. state's way. 139. case: 'I testimony State-imposed class, receiving otherwise situated.' 862, K. baron Clark, Effect Prejudice Discrimination Personality Development (Midcentury White House Conference Children Youth, 1950); Witmer Kotinsky, Making (1952), VI; Deutscher Chein, Psychological Effects Enforced Segregation: Survey Social Science Opinion, 26 J.Psychol. 259 (1948); Conditions Equal Facilities?, Int. Opinion Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, National Welfare (MacIver, ed., 1949), 44—48; Frazier, (1949), 674—681. Myrdal, Dilemma (1944). Bolling Sharpe, 497, 693, Fifth '4. Assuming '(a) follow providing limits set normal geographic districting, choice, '(b) exercise equity powers, permit effective gradual adjustment systems system based color distinctions? '5. assumption 4(a) (b) based, assuming powers end 4(b), formulate detailed cases; so, what issues reach; '(c) appoint master hear evidence view recommending terms decrees; '(d) remand instance directions frame include procedures arriving decrees?' Rule 42, Revised Rules July

Classification Label: 1