U.S. Supreme Court
                       LEE v. WASHINGTON, 390 U.S. 333 (1968)

                                              390 U.S. 333

         LEE, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS OF ALABAMA, ET AL. v.
                                     WASHINGTON ET AL.
     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
                                             DISTRICT OF
                                           ALABAMA. No. 75.
                                    Argued November 7, 1967.
                                     Decided March 11, 1968.

A three-judge District Court declared Alabama statutes requiring racial segregation in prisons
unconstitutional and established a schedule for desegregation. The State's challenges of the
judgment based on Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23 (relating to class actions), the claimed
constitutionality of the statutes, and the failure to allow for necessary prison security and
discipline, held to be without merit.

263 F. Supp. 327, affirmed.

Nicholas S. Hare, Special Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for
appellants. With him on the briefs were MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General, Gordon
Madison, Assistant Attorney General, and J. M. Breckenridge.

Charles Morgan, Jr., argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Orzell
Billingsley, Jr., and Melvin L. Wulf.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal challenges a decree of a three-judge District Court declaring that certain Alabama
statutes violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they require segregation of the races
in prisons and jails, and establishing a schedule for desegregation of these institutions. The
State's contentions that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which relates to class
actions, was violated in this case and that the challenged statutes are not unconstitutional are
without merit. The remaining contention of the State is that the specific orders directing
desegregation of prisons and [390 U.S. 333, 334]   jails make no allowance for the necessities of
prison security and discipline, but we do not so read the "Order, Judgment and Decree" of the
District Court, which when read as a whole we find unexceptionable.

The judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, and MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

In joining the opinion of the Court, we wish to make explicit something that is left to be gathered
only by implication from the Court's opinion. This is that prison authorities have the right, acting
in good faith and in particularized circumstances, to take into account racial tensions in
maintaining security, discipline, and good order in prisons and jails. We are unwilling to assume