Boyer v. Garrett
| Citation | 183 F.2d 582 |
| Decision Date | 17 July 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 6113.,6113. |
| Parties | BOYER et al. v. GARRETT et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Dallas F. Nicholas and I. Duke Avnet, Baltimore, Md. (Edgar Paul Boyko and William H. Murphy, Baltimore, Md., on brief) for appellants.
Allen A. Davis, Baltimore, Md. (Thomas N. Biddison and Hugo A. Ricciuti, Baltimore, Md., on brief) for appellees.
Before PARKER Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal in an action instituted under the Civil Rights Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 43 and 47, against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and the members of the Board of Recreation and Parks of that city. Its purpose is to enjoin the enforcement of a rule officially adopted providing for the segregation of races in athletic activities in the public parks and playgrounds subject to the control of the Board and to recover damages alleged to have been sustained because of the enforcement of the rule. The parties entered into a stipulation that for the purposes of this case no contention was made that the facilities and services furnished the different races were not substantially equal. The contention of plaintiffs is that, notwithstanding this equality of treatment, the rule providing for segregation is violative of the provisions of the federal Constitution. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the authority of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256; and the principal argument made on appeal is that the authority of Plessy v. Ferguson has been so weakened by subsequent decisions that we should no longer consider it as binding. We do not think, however, that we are at liberty thus to disregard a decision of the Supreme Court which that court has not seen fit to overrule and which it expressly refrained from reexamining, although urged to do so, in the very recent case of Sweatt v. Painter, 70 S.Ct. 848. It is for the Supreme Court, not us, to overrule its decisions or to hold them outmoded.
We need not consider arguments based on the 1st Amendment or the Charter of the United Nations. The 1st Amendment manifestly has no relation to athletic contests, and there is nothing in the Charter of the United Nations which, if applicable here, is of broader scope than the provisions of the 14th Amendment in forbidding racial discrimination.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Briggs v. Elliott
...which are squarely in point and conclusive of the question before us. As said by the Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit in Boyer v. Garrett, 183 F.2d 582, a case involving segregation in a public playground, in which equality of treatment was admitted and segregation was attacked as bei......
-
Browder v. Gayle
...no longer be followed by that Court and we find no such indications here." In 1950, the Fourth Circuit had before it the case of Boyer v. Garrett, 183 F.2d 582, involving an officially adopted rule providing for the segregation of races in athletic activities in the public parks and playgro......
-
John R. Thompson Co. v. District of Columbia
...objects of the District of Columbia as those objects appear from the Act. We are referred to the so-called "Jim Crow Cases": Boyer v. Garrett, 183 F. 2d 582 (4 Cir., 1950); Bunn v. City of Atlanta, 67 Ga.App. 147, 19 S.E.2d 553 (1942); Housing Authority of City of Dallas v. Higginbotham (Te......
-
Gebhart v. Belton
...We can make no such assumption. 'It is for the Supreme Court, not us, to overrule its decisions or to hold them outmoded.' Boyer v. Garrett, 4 Cir., 183 F.2d 582, per curiam. It is our duty to uphold the Constitution of our State, and not to abrogate its provisions except in so far--and onl......