 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
SYLLABUS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PUBLIC SCHOOLS SUPREME COURT UNITED STATES SEGREGATION BASIS AMENDMENT NBSP DISTRICT RACE LAWS PHYSICAL FACILITIES KANSAS SYLLABUS PURSUANT STATE LAWS PERMITTING REQUIRING DENIES EQUAL PROTECTION HISTORY INTENDED EFFECT AMERICAN LIFE NATION EQUAL TERMS MINORITY GROUP PLESSY FERGUSON DOCKET SPECIFIED QUESTIONS RELATING DECREES |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+) 347 U.S. 483 Argued December 9, 1952 Reargued December 8, 1953 Decided May 17, 1954 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS* Syllabus Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal. (a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education. (b) The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the full development of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. (c) Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. (d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal.SNIPPETS: |
|
2
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT SCHOOLS SEGREGATION AMENDMENT LAWS NEGRO DOCTRINE REARGUMENT RACE PLAINTIFFS UNITED STATES DISTRICT DEPRIVES PLESSY DELAWARE EQUAL PROTECTION SEPARATE SUPREME COURT REQUIRING FACILITIES FERGUSON EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES NEGROES SUPRA STUDENTS SWEATT PAINTER EQUALITY CONGRESS |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+) 347 U.S. 483 Argued December 9, 1952 Reargued December 8, 1953 Decided May 17, 1954 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS* MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion. In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the 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. Fergson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.SNIPPETS: |
|
3
.
ORALARGUMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT SCHOOLS DISTRICT SOUTH CAROLINA DAVIS AMENDMENT NEGRO PUPILS CONSTITUTION CLARENDON COUNTY AGE MENT WHITE DOLL OPINION APPELLANTS SEGREGATE CLASSIFY BASIS EDUCATION SEPARATE SCHOOLS CONGRESS JUSTICE FRANKFURTER DEFENDANTS PUBLIC SCHOOLS LEGISLATING MENTAL CAPACITY PURPOSE ADMITTED FACTS CONTENTION |
Tuesday, December 10, 1952 Tuesday, December 10, 1952 ARGUMENT OF JOHN W. DAVIS, ESQ., ON BEHALF OF THE TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 22, CLARENDON COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA MR. DAVIS: May it please the Court: I think if the appellants construction of the Fourteenth Amendment should prevail here, there is no doubt in my mind that it would catch the Indian within its grasp just as much as the Negro. If it should prevail, I am unable to see why a state would have any further right to segregate its pupils on the ground of sex or on the ground of age or on the ground of mental capacity. If it may classify it for one purpose on the basis of admitted facts, it may, according to my contention, classify it for other. Now, I want to address myself during the course of this argu ment to three propositions, and I will utilize the remaining min utes of the afternoon to state them. The first thing which I want to contend for before the Court is that the mandate of the court below, which I quote, required the defendants to proceed at once to furnish plaintiffs and other Negro pupils of said district educational facilities, equipment, curricula, and opportunities equal to those furnished white pupils. That mandate has been fully complied with. We have been found to have obeyed the court s injunction. The question is no longer in the case, and the complaint which is made by the appel lants in their brief, that the school doors should have been imme diately thrown open instead of taking the time necessary to read just the physical facilities, is a moot question at this stage of the case.SNIPPETS: |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
