Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
Decision Date | 03 August 1951 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. T-316. |
Citation | 98 F. Supp. 797 |
Parties | BROWN et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
John Scott and Charles Scott, Topeka, Kan., Robert L. Carter, New York City, Jack Greenberg, New York City, and Charles Bledsoe, Topeka, Kan., for plaintiffs.
George Brewster and Lester Goodell, Topeka, Kan., for defendants.
Before HUXMAN, Circuit Judge, MELLOTT, Chief Judge, and HILL, District Judge.
Chapter 72-1724 of the General Statutes of Kansas, 1949, relating to public schools in cities of the first class, so far as material, authorizes such cities to organize and maintain separate schools for the education of white and colored children in the grades below the high school grades. Pursuant to this authority, the City of Topeka, Kansas, a city of the first class, has established and maintains a segregated system of schools for the first six grades. It has established and maintains in the Topeka School District eighteen schools for white students and four schools for colored students.
The adult plaintiffs instituted this action for themselves, their minor children plaintiffs, and all other persons similarly situated for an interlocutory injunction, a permanent injunction, restraining the enforcement, operation and execution of the state statute and the segregation instituted thereunder by the school authorities of the City of Topeka and for a declaratory judgment declaring unconstitutional the state statute and the segregation set up thereunder by the school authorities of the City of Topeka.
As against the school district of Topeka they contend that the opportunities provided for the infant plaintiffs in the separate all Negro schools are inferior to those provided white children in the all white schools; that the respects in which these opportunities are inferior include the physical facilities, curricula, teaching resources, student personnel services as well as all other services. As against both the state and the school district, they contend that apart from all other factors segregation in itself constitutes an inferiority in educational opportunities offered to Negroes and that all of this is in violation of due process guaranteed them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In their answer both the state and the school district defend the constitutionality of the state law and in addition the school district defends the segregation in its schools instituted thereunder.
We have found as a fact that the physical facilities, the curricula, courses of study, qualification of and quality of teachers, as well as other educational facilities in the two sets of schools are comparable. It is obvious that absolute equality of physical facilities is impossible of attainment in buildings that are erected at different times. So also absolute equality of subjects taught is impossible of maintenance when teachers are permitted to select books of their own choosing to use in teaching in addition to the prescribed courses of study. It is without dispute that the prescribed courses of study are identical in all of the Topeka schools and that there is no discrimination in this respect. It is also clear in the record that the educational qualifications of the teachers in the colored schools are equal to those in the white schools and that in all other respects the educational facilities and services are comparable. It is obvious from the fact that there are only four colored schools as against eighteen white schools in the Topeka School District, that colored children in many instances are required to travel much greater distances than they would be required to travel could they attend a white school, and are required to travel much greater distances than white children are required to travel. The evidence, however, establishes that the school district transports colored children to and from school free of charge. No such service is furnished to white children. We conclude that in the maintenance and operation of the schools there is no willful, intentional or substantial discrimination in the matters referred to above between the colored and white schools. In fact, while plaintiffs' attorneys have not abandoned this contention, they did not give it great emphasis in their presentation before the court. They relied primarily upon the contention that segregation in and of itself without more violates their rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
This contention poses a question not free from difficulty. As a subordinate court in the federal judicial system, we seek the answer to this constitutional question in the decisions of the Supreme Court when it has spoken on the subject and do not substitute our own views for the declared law by the Supreme Court. The difficult question as always is to analyze the decisions and seek to ascertain the trend as revealed by the later decisions.
There are a great number of cases, both federal and state, that have dealt with the many phases of segregation. Since the question involves a construction and interpretation of the federal Constitution and the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, we will consider only those cases by the Supreme Court with respect to segregation in the schools. In the early case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 1140, 41 L.Ed. 256, the Supreme Court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tex. Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott
...v. Wade , 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1219 (N.D. Tex. 1970).13 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) ; Brown v. Bd. of Ed. of Topeka, Shawnee Cty., Kan. , 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951), rev'd sub nom. Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, Kan. , 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955)......
-
Brown v. Board of Education
...white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. 98 F.Supp. 797. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1253. In the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, the plaintiff......
-
Green v. Board of Elections of City of New York
...v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 60 S. Ct. 1010, 84 L.Ed. 1375, 127 A.L.R. 1493 (1940), and in the desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education, 98 F.Supp. 797 (D.Kan.1951), rev'd. 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873, 38 A.L.R. 2d 1180 (1954), overruling Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 1......
-
Blocker v. Board of Education of Manhasset, New York
...Won't, 63 Colum.L.Rev. 787, 788 (1963). 6 This was finding VIII of the District Court filed with the opinion but not reported in 98 F.Supp. 797 (D.Kan.1951). 7 See Wechsler, Toward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law, 73 Harv.L. Rev. 1, 32 8 See Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch, 176 ......
-
THE STRANGE CAREER OF THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT: FEDERALISM AND CIVIL RIGHTS, 1954-1976.
...Solimine, Congress, Ex Parte Young, supra note 23, at 128 n.137 (discussing the point more generally). (87.) 347 U.S. 483 (1954), rev'g 98 F. Supp. 797, 800 (D. Kan. 1951) (three-judge court). See also two of the other three cases jointly decided by the Supreme Court in Brown, Briggs v. Ell......
-
Brown v. Board of Education After Fifty Years: Context and Synopsis - James L. Hunt
...367-95. 78. Of course, the suit became the lead case in the consolidated Supreme Court proceedings. Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951); see also Kluger, Simple Justice, supra note 62, at 395. 79. Kluger, Simple Justice, supra note 62, at 395. 80. Id. at 423-24......
-
Brown footnote eleven in historical context: social science and the supreme court's quest for legitimacy.
...(28.) Brown, 347 U.S. at 493. (29.) Id. at 494. (30.) Id. at 494 (citing findings of the lower court in Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951)) (alterations in (31.) Id. (emphasis added). (32.) Paul L. Rosen, History and State of the Art of Applied Social Research in the Cour......
-
Judicial Conscience and Natural Rights: a Reply to Professor Ledewitz
...the lower court, 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951) (finding VIII of the district court ruling filed with the opinion, but not reported in 98 F. Supp. 797). 102. Id. at 103. Id. at 494 n.ll. 104. A. Stephens, Cornerstone Speech, reprinted in POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE Great Rebellion 104 (E. McPh......