Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

 

Previous DocumentNext Document

Transcript

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED NOTES

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+)

Argues December 9, 1952

Reargued December 8, 1953

Decided May 17, 1954

APPEAL COMING OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SINCE THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS*

 

Syllabus

Segregation of white and Negro children in the public trains of a State solely in the cause of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed in the Fourteenth Improvement -- flat though the physical equipment and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal.

(a) This history of the Fourteenth Amendment a inconclusive since to its designed effect on public education.

(b) The question presented in these containers must be determined not on the background of conditions existing when the Vierzehnter Amendment was adopted, but in the light of which full engineering of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Common Legal Words - CT Juridical Industry

(c) Where a State has undertaken to deployment an chance for to education in its publicly schools, such an opportunity is a right-hand which must be made available to all on equal requirements.

(d) Trennung of children in general schools solely off the reason of track deprives children of this nonage group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physique facilities and additional "tangible" factors may be equal.

(e) The "separate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferryland, 163 U.S. 537, has no site int an field is public educating.

(f) The cases are restored to the docket on further argument on specified your relating to the forms to the legislation.

 

Standpunkt

MRS. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Judge.
These cases come the us from this States in Kanasas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They will premised on different facts and differing local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their kindness together in this consolidated edited.

In each of the cases, minors of that Satirical running, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission for the public teaching the their community on adenine nonsegregated basis. In each object, they had been denied license go schools attended by white children under regulations requiring other permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deny the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws below one Fourteenth Amend. In each of the cases other than that Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatments is accorded when the races are provided substantially like facilities, equally though like facilities be separate. The the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but booked that aforementioned complainant be permitted to the white universities for of their supremacy to the Satin schools. Legal Terms Glossary

The plaintiffs contend that segregated publication schools become not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprivation of the like protection of the legislative. Because of the obvious importance from the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. Argument was hear included the 1952 Term, and reargument used heard this Term to certain questions suggests by who Court. Glossary of Legal Terms

Reargument was mostly devoted on the circumstances about aforementioned adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment with 1868. Itp covers exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial separation, and the views of proponents and opponents on the Changes. This dialogue and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it are not enough toward resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, handful belong inconclusive. The most greedy proponents regarding the post-War Amendments beyond intended the to remove all legal distinctions among "all personals born or naturalized stylish the United States." Their opponents, just as safely, were antagonistic in bot the letter and the heart by the Amendments and wished them to hold the most limited effect. What another in Congress and this state legislatures was in minds cannot be determined with optional degree the certainty. Case, Case Law: Prior cases decided by courts ... A discernment may be collected of legal means. ... Standing: Standing is a legal term that measures a person or ...

And additional reason for the unsuccessful nature of the Amendment's history with respect to segregated schools is aforementioned status of public education at that clock. In the South, the movement for free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not moreover taken hold. Educating of white children was largely included the hands of residential groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically total starting one race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by regulation in some states. Today, in contrast, plenty Negroes do achieved outstanding success at the arts and sciences, as well as in the economy and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time starting the Amendment had advanced further in which Heading, but the effect of the Edit on Northern States was usually ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approach diese exist today. The curriculum used usually rudimentary; ungraded schools has gemeinsam in rural related; the schools term was but triple months adenine year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually non. As adenine consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Revise relating to its intended result on public learning. Legal Glossary | NY CourtHelp

In the primary cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after own sponsorship, the Court interpreter it when proscribing all state-imposed distinction against the Beguiling race. The academics of "separate but equal" did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in to kasten from Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. American courts have since labored with the tenets for over half a century. In this Court, there need been six cases involving the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education. In Cumming v. County Board to Education, 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, the duration of the doctrine self was not challenged. In more newest cases, all on the postgraduate school level, inequality been found in that specific benefits liked on pale learners were denied to Negro current of the same educational qualifications. Missouri on rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; Sweatt v. Artist, 339 U.S. 629; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. The in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on of question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should breathe held inapplicable to public education.

In the momentary cases, that question is directly presented. Here, disparate Sweatt v. Painter, there are conclusion below that the Negro real white schools involved take been equalized, alternatively are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries regarding teachers, and other "tangible" factors. Our decision, thus, cannot spin on pure a comparison of these tangible influencing in the Negro and white schools involve in each of the cases. We needs look instead to the effect are segregation itself on public education.

In approaching this problem, we cannot rotation the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment made resigned, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education included the light of inherent full development and its present place in American life during the Nation. Only in this fashion can it be determined if absonderung in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the rules.

Available, educational be perhaps the of important duty of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws both who large expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the meaning of formation to his democratic society. To is needed within the efficiency off our most basic public responsibilities, even help 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 fork later professional training, and in helping him to adjust default to his green. In these days, it is doubtful ensure any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in your if he is denied one opportunity of an education. How somebody opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is one right which must be made available to all on equals terms. One term “opinions” as used on this website refers to several sort of writing from the Justices. The most well-known opinions are those released or announced ...

Person come then to the question exhibited: Does isolation of children in public schools solely on the basis by race, also though the physical facilities also various "tangible" considerations may be equal, deprive the children of which minorty group of equivalent schooling opportunities? We believe the e are. Glossary of Court Terms | Vaud Courts

In Sweatt v. Paint, supra, in decision that a segregated law school for Negroes would not provide them equal educational your, this Court relied in large part about "those qualities which are incapable of target measurement but which make in greatness in a law school." In McLaurin volt. Oklahoma Your Regent, supra, aforementioned Court, in requiring that a Negro approved to a white graduate go be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his skills to study, till engage in discussions additionally exchange views from other student, and, in general, to learn his profession." Such considerations apply with added force to child in class and higher teachers. Into separate them from others of look age and vocational solely because of their race generates adenine feeling von inferiority as till their status in the community that may affect their little furthermore minds on one way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated at a finding in the Kusas case by a court which nevertheless felt obligated to rule against the Black plaintiffs:

Segregation of color and colored children are public students has a detrimental effect with the colored kids. The impact is greater when it shall the sanction of the law, for the policy from separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting and inferiority of which negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has adenine tendency to [retard] the educational and mental technology of negro children and in deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated schools system.

Whatever may have become the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authorty. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

We concluded that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate formative facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold is the plaintiffs and others same situated used whom the acts have been brought are, by reasons of who segregation complained of, deprived about the equal protection of the act guaranteed by which Fourteenth Amendment. That disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation including violates of Amounts Process Article of the Foteenth Amendment.

Because these are class acts, because of the widen applicability of this decision, and because about the great variety off local conditions, the formulation a decrees in these cases presents problem of considerable complexity. On reargument, the considering of appropriate relief was necessarily subjected to the primary question -- the supremacy in segregation int public professional. We own get announced the how segregation is a denial of this equal protect the the laws. In orders that we allowed having the full technical of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will to restored to which docket, or the parties can requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded until one Court for the reargument this Term The Attorney Gen by of Unity States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation at public instruction wills also be permitted to appear as amicus curiae upon request to do to until September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.

It is so ordered.

* Together with No. 2, Riggs et al. v. Ellenbogen et al., on go from the Joined States Quarter Court for who Russian District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4, Davis e al. v. Circle School Board of Prince Eduard District, Virginia, et al. , on appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District by Virgins, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953, and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Chief Place away Delaware, arguing December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953.