 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
BOLLING V SHARPEOPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISTRICT COLUMBIA SEGREGATION PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT CONSTITUTION UNITED STATES REARGUMENT EQUAL PROTECTION GOVERNMENT NBSP RACIAL SEGREGATION LAW EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE EDUCATION FOOTNOTE DISCRIMINATION VIOLATION IMPOSES AMERICAN RACE ARBITRARY DEPRIVATION LIBERTY BROWN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PETITIONERS BRIEFS AMICUS CURIAE PHILIP ELMAN |
U U.S. Supreme Court BOLLING v. SHARPE, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) 347 U.S. 497 BOLLING ET AL. v. SHARPE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 8. Argued December 10-11, 1952. Reargued December 8-9, 1953. Decided May 17, 1954. Racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial to Negro children of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 498-500. (a) Though the Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the States, the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive. P. 499. (b) Discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process. P. 499. (c) Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 499-500. (d) In view of this Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, ante, p. 483, that the Constitution prohibits the States from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government. P. 500. (e) The case is restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the form of the decree. P. 500.SNIPPETS: |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
