Court Opinion

ID: 9425083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:13:40.969024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:53.598045
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan,
dissenting.
While we join Mr. Justice Stewart’s dissenting opinion we do so with this explicit statement of reasons. We said in Bolling v. Share, 347 U. S. 497, 499, when holding *458that segregation of students in the District of Columbia violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment:
“The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The 'equal protection of the laws’ is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than 'due process of law,’ and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.”
The invidious discrimination in the present case is a denial of due process because it denies equal protection within our decisions which make particularly “invidious” discrimination based on wealth or race.