Brown v. Board of Education, Nos. 1
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | WARREN |
| Citation | 75 S.Ct. 753,349 U.S. 294,99 L.Ed. 1083 |
| Parties | Oliver BROWN, et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, Shawnee County, KANSAS, et al. Harry BRIGGS, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. R. W. ELLIOTT, et al. Dorothy E. DAVIS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, et al. Spottswood Thomas BOLLING, et al., Petitioners, v. C. Melvin SHARPE, et al. Francis B. GEBHART, et al., Petitioners, v. Ethel Louise BELTON, et al. to 5 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1 |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1955 |
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, Shawnee County, KANSAS, et al. Harry BRIGGS, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. R. W. ELLIOTT, et al. Dorothy E. DAVIS, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, et al. Spottswood Thomas BOLLING, et al., Petitioners, v. C. Melvin SHARPE, et al. Francis B. GEBHART, et al., Petitioners, v. Ethel Louise BELTON, et al.
[Syllabus from pages 294-295 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Robert L. Carter, New York City, for appellants in No. 1.
Mr. Harold R. Fatzer, Topeka, Kan., for appellees in No. 1.
Messrs. Thurgood Marshall, New York City, and Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Richmond, Va., for appellants in Nos. 2 and 3.
Messrs. S. E. Rogers, Summerton, S.C., and Robert McC. Figg, Jr., Charleston, S.C., for appellees in No. 2.
Messrs. Archibald G. Robertson, Richmond, Va., and J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Atty. Gen., for appellees in No. 3.
Messrs. George E. C. Hayes and James M. Nabrit, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioners in No. 4.
Mr. Milton D. Korman, Washington, D.C., for respondents in No. 4.
Mr. Joseph Donald Craven, Wilmington, Del., for petitioners in No. 5.
Mr. Louis L. Redding, Wilmington, Del., for respondents in No. 5.
Messrs. Richard W. Ervin and Ralph E. Odum, Tallahassee, Fla., for State of Florida, I. Beverly Lake, Raleigh, N.C., for State of North Carolina, Thomas J. Gentry, Little Rock, Ark., for State of Arkansas, Mac Q. Williamson, Oklahoma, City, Okl., for State of Oklahoma, C. Ferdinand Sybert, Ellicott City, Md., for State of Maryland, John Ben Shepperd and Burnell Waldrep, Austin, Tex., for State of Texas, Sol. Gen. Simon E. Sobeloff, Washington, D.C., for the United States, amici curiae.
[Amicus Curiae Information from
Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases were decided on May 17, 1954. The opinions of that date,1 declaring the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional, are incorporated herein by reference. All provisions of federal, state, or local law requiring or permitting such discrimination must yield to this principle. There remains for consideration the manner in which relief is to be accorded.
Because these cases arose under different local conditions and their disposition will involve a variety of local problems, we requested further argument on the question of relief.2 In view of the nationwide importance of the decision, we invited the Attorney General of the United
States and the Attorneys General of all states requiring or permitting racial discrimination in public education to present their views on that question. The parties, the United States, and the States of Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Texas filed briefs and participated in the oral argument.
These presentations were informative and helpful to the Court in its consideration of the complexities arising from the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination. The presentations also demonstrated that substantial steps to eliminate racial discrimination in public schools have already been taken, not only in some of the communities in which these cases arose, but in some of the states appearing as amici curiae, and in other states as well. Substantial progress has been made in the District of Columbia and in the communities in Kansas and Delaware involved in this litigation. The defendants in the cases coming to us from South Carolina and Virginia are awaiting the decision of this Court concerning relief.
Full implementation of these constitutional principles may require solution of varied local school problems. School authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving these problems; courts will have to consider whether the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles. Because of their proximity to local conditions and the possible need for further hearings, the courts which originally heard these cases can best perform this judicial appraisal. Accordingly, we believe it appropriate to remand the cases to those courts.3
In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the courts will be guided by equitable principles. Traditionally, equity has been characterized by a practical flexibility in shaping its remedies4 and by a facility for adjusting and reconciling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. State of Mo., No. 77-0420-CV-W-4.
...the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution and no further proof of segregative intent is required. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955) (Brown II), Swann v. Charlotte-Mechlenburg Bd. of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (......
-
Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, Civ. A. No. 71-1575.
...to protect and effectuate its prior judgment. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 95 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955); United States v. State of Washington, 459 F.Supp. 1020, 1115 (D.Wash.1978). An injunction seeks not on......
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
...as possible the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 and 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF STATUTES IN SUIT On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. ......
-
Smith v. Board of Education of Morrilton Sch. Dist. No. 32, No. 18243.
...L.Ed. 873 (1954). The Court forthwith considered the procedure by which this decision was to be implemented. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955). It recognized as its objective the orderly "transition to a system of public education freed of racial......
-
Resident Advisory Bd. v. Rizzo, Civ. A. No. 71-1575.
...to protect and effectuate its prior judgment. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 95 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955); United States v. State of Washington, 459 F.Supp. 1020, 1115 (D.Wash.1978). An injunction seeks not on......
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty, Civ. A. No. 2435
...as possible the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 and 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF STATUTES IN SUIT On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. ......
-
Smith v. Board of Education of Morrilton Sch. Dist. No. 32, No. 18243.
...L.Ed. 873 (1954). The Court forthwith considered the procedure by which this decision was to be implemented. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S. Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955). It recognized as its objective the orderly "transition to a system of public education freed of racial......
-
Cobell v. Norton, Civil Action Number 96-1285 (RCL) (D. D.C. 9/25/2003), Civil Action Number 96-1285 (RCL).
...public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases." Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955) ("Brown II"). The Court explained that the district courts were to "consider the adequacy of any plans the defendants may propose......
-
The Centrality of Exclusion: Legal Impediments to Keeping 'Undesirable' People and Uses Out of the Community
...to craft effective remedies, compare with the efforts of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (I and II), 347 U.S. 483 (1954), 349 U.S. 294 (1955), and their controversial, often-complicated progeny? 4. There are important environmental aspects to Mount Laurel . First, the New J......
-
PROCEDURAL LOSSES AND THE PYRRHIC VICTORY OF ABOLISHING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
...qualified immunity"). (190.) 347 U.S. 483 (1954). (191.) Fallon, Jr., supra note 23, at 688. (192.) See Brown v. Bd. of Educ. (II), 349 U.S. 294, 298-301 (193.) See Fallon, Jr., supra note 23, at 639-42; see also Levinson, supra note 180, at 899 (discussing how the Court's "proces......
-
Prospective injunctive relief and class settlements.
...complaint, but the term of the injunction obtained was in reality shorter than the thirty months claimed). (60.) Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955) (discussing "period of transition" during which district courts should maintain jurisdiction over desegregation cases to......
-
The United States Supreme Court and the Segregation Issue
...Brown v. Board of Educ., Briggs v.Elliott, Davis v. County School Board, Geb-hart v. Belton, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S.483 (1954).55 349 U. S. 294 (1955).Rayford W. Logan, Ph.D., Washington, D. C., is professor of history and head of thedepartment at Howard University. He previously taugh......