Laurin v. Oklahoma State Regents For Higher Education
| Citation | 70 S.Ct. 851,339 U.S. 637,94 L.Ed. 1149 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 34,34 |
| Parties | McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION et al |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Amos T. Hall, Tulsa, Okl., Robert L. Carter, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Fred Hansen, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees.
In this case, we are faced with the question whether a state may, after admitting a student to graduate instruction in its state university, afford him different treatment from other students solely because of his race. We decide only this issue; see Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. 848.
Appellant is a Negro citizen of Oklahoma. Possessing a Master's degree, he applied for admission to the University of Oklahoma in order to pursue studies and courses leading to a Doctorate in Education. At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. The school authorities were required to exclude him by the Oklahoma statutes, 70 Okl.Stat. (1941) §§ 455, 456, 457, which made it a misdemeanor to maintain or operate, teach or attend a school at which both whites and Negroes are enrolled or taught. Appellant filed a complaint requesting injunctive relief, alleging that the action of the school authorities and the statutes upon which their action was based were unconstitutional and deprived him of the equal protection of the laws. Citing our decisions in State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 1938, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. 232, 83 L.Ed. 208, and Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 1948, 332 U.S. 631, 68 S.Ct. 299, 92 L.Ed. 247, a statutory three-judge District Court held, 87 F.Supp. 526, that the State had a constitutional duty to provide him with the education he sought as soon as it provided that education for applicants of any other group. It further held that to the extent the Oklahoma statutes denied him admission they were unconstitutional and void. On the assumption, however, that the State would follow the constitutional mandate, the court refused to grant the injunction, retaining jurisdiction of the cause with full power to issue any necessary and proper orders to secure McLaurin the equal protection of the laws.
Following this decision, the Oklahoma legislature amended these statutes to permit the admission of Negroes to institutions of higher learning attended by white students, in cases where such institutions offered courses not available in the Negro schools. The amendment provided, however, that in such cases the program of instruction 'shall be given at such colleges or institutions of higher education upon a segregated basis.'1 Appel- lant was thereupon admitted to the University of Oklahoma Graduate School. In apparent conformity with the amendment, his admission was made subject to 'such rules and regulations as to segregation as the President of the University shall consider to afford Mr. G. W. McLaurin substantially equal educational opportunities as are afforded to other persons seeking the same education in the Graduate College,' a condition which does not appear to have been withdrawn. Thus he was required to sit apart at a designated desk in an anteroom adjoining the classroom; to sit at a designated desk on the mezzanine floor of the library, but not to use the desks in the regular reading room; and to sit at a designated table and to eat at a different time from the other students in the school cafeteria.
To remove these conditions, appellant filed a motion to modify the order and judgment of the District Court. That court held that such treatment did not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and denied the motion. 87 F.Supp. 528. This appeal followed.
In the interval between the decision of the court below and the hearing in this Court, the treatment afforded appellant was altered. For some time, the section of the classroom in which appellant sat was surrounded by a rail on which there was a sign stating, 'Reserved For Colored,' but these have been removed. He is now assigned to a seat in the classroom in a row specified for colored students; he is assigned to a table in the library on the main floor; and he is permitted to eat at the same time in the cafeteria as other students, although here again he is assigned to a special table.
It is said that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. Board of Education
...equal to that which he would receive if admitted to the University of Texas Law School.' (See also MlLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 851, 94 L.Ed. 1149.) A similar observation could be made as to the Los Angeles public school In light of the detrimental conseq......
-
Hobson v. Hansen
...to public school education. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. 848, 94 L.Ed. 1114 (1950); McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 851, 94 L.Ed. 1149 (1950). Heedful that this doctrine was in its twilight, in the early fifties the school administration began readyin......
-
Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia
...537, at 556, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 1145, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896). The basis of all prior decisions in school cases, at least since McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, and Sweatt v. Painter, supra, is that dual school systems are impermissible for they cannot provide equal protection of the laws......
-
State ex rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control
...Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631, 68 S.Ct. 299, 92 L.Ed. 247; cf. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 851, 94 L.Ed. 1149. Thus, our second decision in the Brown case, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083, which imp......
-
The Long Road to Dignity: The Wrong of Segregation and What the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Had to Change
...68. 311. Id. 312. MYRDAL, supra note 211, at 273. 313. GRAHAM, supra note 31, at 65. 314. McLaurin v. Okla. State Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U.S. 637 (1950) (ordering the admission of an African American to the graduate school at the University of Oklahoma); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629......
-
The Equal Protection Clause
...supra note 5, at 554-56. [119] 305 U.S. 337, 348-52 (1938). [120] 332 U.S. 631, 632-33 (1946). [121] 339 U.S. 629, 631-36 (1950). [122] 339 U.S. 637, 638-42 [123] 334 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1948). [124] Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 215-16 (1944). [125] Id. at 216. [126] Id. at 241 (Mur......
-
Table of Cases
...Dep't of Business Regulation of Florida, 496 U.S. 18, 110 S.Ct. 2238, 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990), 602 McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 851, 94 L.Ed. 1149 (1950), 445, 1067, McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781, 117 S.Ct. 1734, 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997), 603 McNeese v. Bo......
-
Civil death is different: an examination of a post-Graham challenge to felon disenfranchisement under the Eighth Amendment.
...that restrictive covenants segregating neighborhoods by race violated the Equal Protection Clause); McLaurin v. Okla. State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 642 (1950) (finding a state law that provided different graduate education for students based on race invalid under the Fourteenth (87) Rudolph ......