Separate But Equal: The History of Segregation in the Law Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) TM

Separate But Equal: Separate But Equal: The History of Segregation in The History of Segregation in

the Lawthe Law

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

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

If you were responsible for If you were responsible for selecting all of the judges in selecting all of the judges in Florida, what would you look Florida, what would you look for?for?

KnowledgeKnowledgeSkillsSkillsDisposition/QualitiesDisposition/Qualities

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

How are judges different How are judges different from other elected from other elected officials such as officials such as legislators?legislators?

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

Should judges be influenced by Should judges be influenced by political pressures when deciding a political pressures when deciding a case?case?

Would you want a judge to make a Would you want a judge to make a decision based on the law decision based on the law oror how how the public might react to the the public might react to the decision?decision?

Should judges do what is legally Should judges do what is legally right or should they do what is right or should they do what is popular?popular?

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

JUDGES MUST FOLLOWJUDGES MUST FOLLOW::

FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONFEDERAL CONSTITUTION

STATE CONSTITUTIONSTATE CONSTITUTION

STATUTESSTATUTES

RULESRULES

HIGHER COURT DECISIONS HIGHER COURT DECISIONS (PRECEDENT)(PRECEDENT)

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

So, a judge cannot decide So, a judge cannot decide a case based on how a case based on how he/she he/she feelsfeels about an about an issue.issue.

TM

JUDGESJUDGES

If a judge does not follow the If a judge does not follow the existing law, his/her decision is existing law, his/her decision is subject to subject to reviewreview by an appellate by an appellate court.court.

All courts are subject to review by a All courts are subject to review by a higher court higher court exceptexcept for the highest for the highest court in the country: the Supreme court in the country: the Supreme Court of the United States.Court of the United States.

TM

Today, you will be a Today, you will be a justice on the U.S. justice on the U.S. Supreme Court and Supreme Court and decide a real case decide a real case involving the Fourteenth involving the Fourteenth Amendment.Amendment.

TM

But first –But first –

You need to know about You need to know about the Fourteenth the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Constitution.

TM

§ 1 of the Fourteenth § 1 of the Fourteenth AmendmentAmendment

All persons born or naturalized in the All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein United States and of the State wherein they reside. they reside. No State shall make or No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United StatesUnited States; ; nor shall any State . . . deny nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the lawsequal protection of the laws..

TM

Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment

What are “privileges” or What are “privileges” or “immunities”?“immunities”?

What does “equal protection” What does “equal protection” mean?mean?

TM

Privileges and ImmunitiesPrivileges and ImmunitiesSlaughter-House CasesSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), 83 U.S. 36 (1872)

In the mid-19th century, New Orleans was In the mid-19th century, New Orleans was plagued by health concerns stemming from plagued by health concerns stemming from slaughterhouses located within the city.slaughterhouses located within the city.

In response, the Louisiana legislature In response, the Louisiana legislature passed an act that required all passed an act that required all slaughterhouses in New Orleans to move to slaughterhouses in New Orleans to move to a specific area and be operated by a a specific area and be operated by a private corporation chartered by the State.private corporation chartered by the State.

TM


Over 400 butchers sued the State of Over 400 butchers sued the State of Louisiana as well as the private Louisiana as well as the private corporation in multiple actions, alleging, in corporation in multiple actions, alleging, in part, a violation of the privileges or part, a violation of the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Amendment.

Each of the state trial courts ruled in favor Each of the state trial courts ruled in favor of the State and/or the private corporation, of the State and/or the private corporation, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed those decisions.those decisions.

TM


The United States Supreme Court affirmed the The United States Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.decisions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

The Court held that the Privileges or The Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment affected only rights of United Amendment affected only rights of United States citizenship and not state citizenship.States citizenship and not state citizenship.

The Court further held that the amendment The Court further held that the amendment was primarily intended to protect former slaves was primarily intended to protect former slaves from discriminatory laws and could not be so from discriminatory laws and could not be so broadly applied as to restrict the police powers broadly applied as to restrict the police powers of the state.of the state.

TM

““Equal Protection”Equal Protection”Strauder v. West VirginiaStrauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1879), 100 U.S. 303 (1879)

West Virginia passed a law which excluded West Virginia passed a law which excluded African-Americans from serving on juries. African-Americans from serving on juries. Strauder was a black man who had been convicted Strauder was a black man who had been convicted by an all-white jury in West Virginia state court.by an all-white jury in West Virginia state court.

Strauder challenged his conviction as being in Strauder challenged his conviction as being in violation of the Equal Protection Clause due to the violation of the Equal Protection Clause due to the State’s failure to allow African-Americans to serve State’s failure to allow African-Americans to serve on his jury.on his jury.

After losing his challenge in the West Virginia trial After losing his challenge in the West Virginia trial court, Strauder appealed to the Supreme Court of court, Strauder appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which affirmed his Appeals of West Virginia, which affirmed his conviction.conviction.

TM


The case was then appealed to the The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which United States Supreme Court, which reversed the decision below.reversed the decision below.

A majority of the High Court held that A majority of the High Court held that the categorical exclusion of all African-the categorical exclusion of all African-Americans from juries for no other Americans from juries for no other reason than their race was a violation of reason than their race was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.the Equal Protection Clause.

TM


The Court did, however, limit its holding to The Court did, however, limit its holding to race:race:

““We do not say that within the limits from which it We do not say that within the limits from which it is not excluded by the amendment a State may not is not excluded by the amendment a State may not prescribe the qualifications of its jurors, and in so prescribe the qualifications of its jurors, and in so doing make discriminations. It may confine the doing make discriminations. It may confine the selection to males, to freeholders, to citizens, to selection to males, to freeholders, to citizens, to persons within certain ages, or to persons having persons within certain ages, or to persons having educational qualifications. We do not believe the educational qualifications. We do not believe the Fourteenth Amendment was ever intended to Fourteenth Amendment was ever intended to prohibit this.”prohibit this.”

TM

§ 5 of the Fourteenth § 5 of the Fourteenth AmendmentAmendment

The Congress shall have power to The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.the provisions of this article.

TM

Enforcement of 14th AmendmentEnforcement of 14th Amendment

After the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which After the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, abolished slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875.Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

The act provided that "all persons within the jurisdiction The act provided that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude."previous condition of servitude."

TM

Enforcement of 14th AmendmentEnforcement of 14th AmendmentCivil Rights CasesCivil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), 109 U.S. 3 (1883)

Five separate cases, each involving an African-Five separate cases, each involving an African-American individual who had been denied access to American individual who had been denied access to hotels, theatres, or railway cars, were consolidated hotels, theatres, or railway cars, were consolidated before the United States Supreme Court.before the United States Supreme Court.

Ruling in favor of the discriminating private Ruling in favor of the discriminating private property owners, the High Court held:property owners, the High Court held: Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not give Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not give

Congress the power to regulate private actors, just Congress the power to regulate private actors, just states.states.

The Thirteenth Amendment applies to private actors The Thirteenth Amendment applies to private actors only so far as it precludes them from owning slaves, but only so far as it precludes them from owning slaves, but not with regard to discrimination.not with regard to discrimination.

TM

Separate But Equal Separate But Equal Part IPart I

Plessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson, , 163 U.S. 537 (1896)163 U.S. 537 (1896)

TM

Plessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. , 163 U.S. 537 (1896)537 (1896)

In 1890, Louisiana passed a law that provided:

“[A]ll railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this State shall provide equal but

separate accommodations for the white and colored races by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations.”

TM


On June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy boarded a railway car designated for white patrons only.

Although Plessy was born a free person and was one-eighth black and seven-eighths white, under a Louisiana law he was classified as black, and thus required to sit in the "colored" car.

Plessy refused to leave the “white” car and was subsequently arrested and jailed.

TM


Plessy was tried in Louisiana state court for violating the Louisiana statute.

Plessy argued that the state law requiring railroad companies to segregate trains denied him his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The judge presiding over his case held that Louisiana had the right to regulate railroad companies as long as they operated within state boundaries.

Plessy subsequently filed a petition for writ of prohibition with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was denied.

TM


On appeal to the Supreme Court of the On appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, the High Court affirmed.United States, the High Court affirmed.

In a 7-1 decision, a majority of the Court In a 7-1 decision, a majority of the Court held that the provision of “separate” held that the provision of “separate” but “equal” private services, as but “equal” private services, as mandated by state government, did not mandated by state government, did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

TM

Lum v. RiceLum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927), 275 U.S. 78 (1927)

Martha Lum, a nine-year-old child of Chinese Martha Lum, a nine-year-old child of Chinese descent, was prohibited from attending an all-descent, was prohibited from attending an all-white public school in Mississippi solely because white public school in Mississippi solely because of her descent.of her descent.

Lum’s father petitioned a Mississippi state court Lum’s father petitioned a Mississippi state court for a writ of mandamus to force the Board of for a writ of mandamus to force the Board of Trustees of the public school system to allow her Trustees of the public school system to allow her to enroll in the all-white school. He asserted that to enroll in the all-white school. He asserted that she had been improperly classified as “colored.”she had been improperly classified as “colored.”

The trial court granted the request and allowed The trial court granted the request and allowed Lum to enroll.Lum to enroll.

TM


The Board of Trustees petitioned the The Board of Trustees petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court to reverse the Mississippi Supreme Court to reverse the trial court’s decision.trial court’s decision.

The Mississippi High Court agreed with The Mississippi High Court agreed with the Board, reversed the trial court's the Board, reversed the trial court's decision, and allowed the Board of decision, and allowed the Board of Trustees to exclude Lum from the all-Trustees to exclude Lum from the all-white school.white school.

Lum’s father appealed to the United Lum’s father appealed to the United States Supreme Court.States Supreme Court.

TM


The United States Supreme Court The United States Supreme Court affirmed, unanimously holding that affirmed, unanimously holding that Lum’s father had not established a Lum’s father had not established a denial of equal protection of the laws denial of equal protection of the laws when his daughter was placed in when his daughter was placed in classes with other “colored” races. classes with other “colored” races. According to the Court, those races had According to the Court, those races had been “furnished facilities for education been “furnished facilities for education [that were] equal to that offered to all.”[that were] equal to that offered to all.”

TM

Gaines v. CanadaGaines v. Canada, , 305 U.S. 337 (1938)305 U.S. 337 (1938)

The University of Missouri Law School refused admission to Lloyd Gaines solely because he was an African-American.

At the time, there was no law school available to African-Americans within the State of Missouri.

After Gaines alleged that this refusal violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights, the state of Missouri offered to pay for Gaines’ tuition at the law school of an adjacent state. Gaines rejected this offer.

TM


Gaines filed a petition for writ of Gaines filed a petition for writ of mandamus in Missouri state court mandamus in Missouri state court asking the trial court to compel the asking the trial court to compel the law school to admit him.law school to admit him.

The trial court denied relief. Gaines The trial court denied relief. Gaines appealed to the Missouri Supreme appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, but that court affirmed the Court, but that court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition.trial court’s denial of the petition.

TM


On appeal to the United States On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the High Court Supreme Court, the High Court reversed.reversed.

A majority of the Court reasoned that A majority of the Court reasoned that because Missouri did not have an because Missouri did not have an alternative means for African-alternative means for African-Americans to obtain a legal Americans to obtain a legal education, the State was required to education, the State was required to admit him to an all-white law school.admit him to an all-white law school.

TM

Sweatt v. PainterSweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. , 339 U.S. 629 (1950)629 (1950)

Heman Marion Sweatt was denied Heman Marion Sweatt was denied admission to the University of Texas Law admission to the University of Texas Law School because the Texas Constitution School because the Texas Constitution expressly prohibited integration.expressly prohibited integration.

Sweatt sought a writ of mandamus in Sweatt sought a writ of mandamus in Texas state court. Instead of issuing the Texas state court. Instead of issuing the writ, the trial court delayed the case for writ, the trial court delayed the case for six months to allow the state to create a six months to allow the state to create a law school for African-Americans.law school for African-Americans.

TM


After the creation of the law school, After the creation of the law school, Sweatt asserted that the two schools Sweatt asserted that the two schools were not “equal” and insisted on were not “equal” and insisted on admission to the all-white law school.admission to the all-white law school.

The trial court denied the petition, a The trial court denied the petition, a Texas appellate court affirmed the Texas appellate court affirmed the denial, and the Texas Supreme Court denial, and the Texas Supreme Court denied a writ of error.denied a writ of error.

TM


The United States Supreme Court The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that the inequality reversed, holding that the inequality between the two law schools violated between the two law schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment.the Fourteenth Amendment.

To establish inequality, the Court To establish inequality, the Court cited a number of tangible factors, cited a number of tangible factors, including number of faculty, books in including number of faculty, books in the library, and access to the library, and access to extracurricular activities.extracurricular activities.

TM


The Court also relied on intangible factors:The Court also relied on intangible factors:“The law school, the proving ground for legal learning and practice, cannot be effective in isolation from the individuals and institutions with which the law interacts. Few students and no one who has practiced law would choose to study in an academic vacuum, removed from the interplay of ideas and the exchange of views with which the law is concerned . . . With such a substantial and significant segment of society excluded, we cannot conclude that the education offered [Sweatt] is substantially equal to that which he would receive if admitted to the University of Texas Law School.”

TM

Separate But EqualSeparate But EqualPart IIPart II

TODAY’S CASE:TODAY’S CASE:

TM

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

Separate But EqualSeparate But Equal

Before we discover how the United Before we discover how the United States Supreme Court decided States Supreme Court decided BrownBrown, ask yourself the following , ask yourself the following questions and provide written questions and provide written answers based upon the cases we answers based upon the cases we have discussed:have discussed:

TM


How are the facts of this case similar How are the facts of this case similar to to PlessyPlessy, , LumLum, , GainesGaines, and , and SweattSweatt??

How are they different?How are they different? What did the Equal Protection Clause What did the Equal Protection Clause

mean after those four cases were mean after those four cases were decided?decided?

TM

Now you are Justices Now you are Justices on the U.S. Supreme on the U.S. Supreme Court.Court.

Here is the question Here is the question before the court…before the court…


CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION:CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION:

Does segregation of children in Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal the minority group of equal educational opportunities? educational opportunities?

TM


Individually answer the question Individually answer the question – –

Yes or No – based on the facts of Yes or No – based on the facts of the case, the constitution, and the case, the constitution, and case precedent.case precedent.

-Give 3 reasons in writing.-Give 3 reasons in writing.


If you answer “Yes” – you are If you answer “Yes” – you are deciding for Brown.deciding for Brown.

__________________________________________________________

If you answer “No” you are If you answer “No” you are deciding for the Board of deciding for the Board of Education. Education.

• Form groups of 5Form groups of 5

• Choose a Chief JusticeChoose a Chief Justice

• Chief Justice Maintains OrderChief Justice Maintains Order

• Poll the Justices. How did each one of you answer Poll the Justices. How did each one of you answer

the questions and why?the questions and why?

• Try to reach to a unanimous decision. Did the Try to reach to a unanimous decision. Did the

State’s actions violate the Fourteenth Amendment?State’s actions violate the Fourteenth Amendment?

• You have You have 10 minutes10 minutes to discuss then take a final to discuss then take a final

poll.poll.



After each Court decides:After each Court decides:

Bring the Chief Justices to the Bring the Chief Justices to the front of the room to report on front of the room to report on the decision of each groupthe decision of each group

Tally results and announceTally results and announce


CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION:CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION:

Does segregation of children in Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal the minority group of equal educational opportunities? educational opportunities?

TM

What did the real U.S. What did the real U.S. Supreme Court decide Supreme Court decide and why?and why?

TM


Brown v. Board of Education of TopekaBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka, , 347 U.S. 483 (1954)347 U.S. 483 (1954)

In a unanimous decision, the In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held United States Supreme Court held that the “separate but equal” that the “separate but equal” doctrine in the field of public doctrine in the field of public education is unconstitutional and education is unconstitutional and violates the Fourteenth violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned Amendment. The Court reasoned that segregation, in and of itself, that segregation, in and of itself, was harmful to African-American was harmful to African-American students. The Court rejected its students. The Court rejected its prior approval in prior approval in PlessyPlessy of the of the “separate but equal” doctrine.“separate but equal” doctrine. TM

Documents

Separate But Equal: The History of Segregation in the Law Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) TM