Brown-v.-Board-of-Education-of---Topeka--347-U.S.-

U.S.SupremeCourtBrownv.BoardofEducationofTopeka,347U.S.483(1954)Brownv.BoardofEducationofTopekaArguedDecember9,1952RearguedDecember8,1953DecidedMay17,1954*APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFKANSASSyllabusSegregationofwhiteandNegrochildreninthepublicschoolsofaStatesolelyonthebasisofrace,pursuanttostatelawspermittingorrequiringsuchsegregation,deniestoNegrochildrentheequalprotectionofthelawsguaranteedbytheFourteenthAmendment--eventhoughthephysicalfacilitiesandothertangiblefactorsofwhiteandNegroschoolsmaybeequal.(a)ThehistoryoftheFourteenthAmendmentisinconclusiveastoitsintendedeffectonpubliceducation.Pp.347U.S.489-490.(b)ThequestionpresentedinthesecasesmustbedeterminednotonthebasisofconditionsexistingwhentheFourteenthAmendmentwasadopted,butinthelightofthefulldevelopmentofpubliceducationanditspresentplaceinAmericanlifethroughouttheNation.Pp.347U.S.492-493.(c)WhereaStatehasundertakentoprovideanopportunityforaneducationinitspublicschools,suchanopportunityisarightwhichmustbemadeavailabletoallonequalterms.P.347U.S.493.(d)Segregationofchildreninpublicschoolssolelyonthebasisofracedepriveschildrenoftheminoritygroupofequaleducationalopportunities,eventhoughthephysicalfacilitiesandothertangiblefactorsmaybeequal.Pp.347U.S.493-494.(e)TheseparatebutequaldoctrineadoptedinPlessyv.Ferguson,163U.S.537,hasnoplaceinthefieldofpubliceducation.P.347U.S.495.(f)Thecasesarerestoredtothedocketforfurtherargumentonspecifiedquestionsrelatingtotheformsofthedecrees.Pp.347U.S.495-496.MR.CHIEFJUSTICEWARRENdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.ThesecasescometousfromtheStatesofKansas,SouthCarolina,Virginia,andDelaware.Theyarepremisedondifferentfactsanddifferentlocalconditions,butacommonlegalquestionjustifiestheirconsiderationtogetherinthisconsolidatedopinion.[Footnote1]Ineachofthecases,minorsoftheNegrorace,throughtheirlegalrepresentatives,seektheaidofthecourtsinobtainingadmissiontothepublicschoolsoftheircommunityonanonsegregatedbasis.Ineachinstance,theyhadbeendeniedadmissiontoschoolsattendedbywhitechildrenunderlawsrequiringorpermittingsegregationaccordingtorace.ThissegregationwasallegedtodeprivetheplaintiffsoftheequalprotectionofthelawsundertheFourteenthAmendment.IneachofthecasesotherthantheDelawarecase,athree-judgefederaldistrictcourtdeniedrelieftotheplaintiffsontheso-calledseparatebutequaldoctrineannouncedbythisCourtinPlessyv.Fergson,163U.S.537.Underthatdoctrine,equalityoftreatmentisaccordedwhentheracesareprovidedsubstantiallyequalfacilities,eventhoughthesefacilitiesbeseparate.IntheDelawarecase,theSupremeCourtofDelawareadheredtothatdoctrine,butorderedthattheplaintiffsbeadmittedtothewhiteschoolsbecauseoftheirsuperioritytotheNegroschools.Theplaintiffscontendthatsegregatedpublicschoolsarenotequalandcannotbemadeequal,andthathencetheyaredeprivedoftheequalprotectionofthelaws.Becauseoftheobviousimportanceofthequestionpresented,theCourttookjurisdiction.[Footnote2]Argumentwasheardinthe1952Term,andreargumentwasheardthisTermoncertainquestionspropoundedbytheCourt.[Footnote3]ReargumentwaslargelydevotedtothecircumstancessurroundingtheadoptionoftheFourteenthAmendmentin1868.ItcoveredexhaustivelyconsiderationoftheAmendmentinCongress,ratificationbythestates,then-existingpracticesinracialsegregation,andtheviewsofproponentsandopponentsoftheAmendment.Thisdiscussionandourowninvestigationconvinceusthat,althoughthesesourcescastsomelight,itisnotenoughtoresolvetheproblemwithwhichwearefaced.Atbest,theyareinconclusive.Themostavidproponentsofthepost-WarAmendmentsundoubtedlyintendedthemtoremovealllegaldistinctionsamongallpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates.Theiropponents,justascertainly,wereantagonistictoboththeletterandthespiritoftheAmendmentsandwishedthemtohavethemostlimitedeffect.WhatothersinCongressandthestatelegislatureshadinmindcannotbedeterminedwithanydegreeofcertainty.AnadditionalreasonfortheinconclusivenatureoftheAmendment'shistorywithrespecttosegregatedschoolsisthestatusofpubliceducationatthattime.[Footnote4]IntheSouth,themovementtowardfreecommonschools,supportedbygeneraltaxation,hadnotyettakenhold.Educationofwhitechildrenwaslargelyinthehandsofprivategroups.EducationofNegroeswasalmostnonexistent,andpracticallyalloftheracewereilliterate.Infact,anyeducationofNegroeswasforbiddenbylawinsomestates.Today,incontrast,manyNegroeshaveachievedoutstandingsuccessintheartsandsciences,aswellasinthebusinessandprofessionalworld.ItistruethatpublicschooleducationatthetimeoftheAmendmenthadadvancedfurtherintheNorth,buttheeffectoftheAmendmentonNorthernStateswasgenerallyignoredinthecongressionaldebates.EvenintheNorth,theconditionsofpubliceducationdidnotapproximatethoseexistingtoday.Thecurriculumwasusuallyrudimentary;ungradedschoolswerecommoninruralareas;theschooltermwasbutthreemonthsayearinmanystates,andcompulsoryschoolattendancewasvirtuallyunknown.Asaconsequence,itisnotsurprisingthatthereshouldbesolittleinthehistoryoftheFourteenthAmendmentrelatingtoitsintendedeffectonpubliceducation.InthefirstcasesinthisCourtconstruingtheFourteenthAmendment,decidedshortlyafteritsadopt