Mendez v. Westminister School Dist.
Decision Date | 18 February 1946 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 4292. |
Citation | 64 F. Supp. 544 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | MENDEZ et al. v. WESTMINISTER SCHOOL DIST. OF ORANGE COUNTY et al. |
David C. Marcus, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Joel E. Ogle, Co. Counsel, and George F. Holden, Deputy Co. Counsel, both of Santa Ana, Cal., for respondents.
A. L. Wirin and J. B. Tietz, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for American Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.
Chas. F. Christopher, Ben Margolis, and Loren Miller, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for National Lawyers Guild, amicus curiae.
Gonzalo Mendez, William Guzman, Frank Palomino, Thomas Estrada and Lorenzo Ramirez, as citizens of the United States, and on behalf of their minor children, and as they allege in the petition, on behalf of "some 5000" persons similarly affected, all of Mexican or Latin descent, have filed a class suit pursuant to Rule 23 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, against the Westminister, Garden Grove and El Modeno School Districts, and the Santa Ana City Schools, all of Orange County, California, and the respective trustees and superintendents of said school districts.
The complaint, grounded upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States1 and Subdivision 14 of Section 24 of the Judicial Code, Title 28, Section 41, subdivision 14, U.S.C.A.,2 alleges a concerted policy and design of class discrimination against "persons of Mexican or Latin descent or extraction" of elementary school age by the defendant school agencies in the conduct and operation of public schools of said districts, resulting in the denial of the equal protection of the laws to such class of persons among which are the petitioning school children.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege:
The petitioners demand that the alleged rules, regulations, customs and usages be adjudged void and unconstitutional and that an injunction issue restraining further application by defendant school authorities of such rules, regulations, customs, and usages.
It is conceded by all parties that there is no question of race discrimination in this action. It is, however, admitted that segregation per se is practiced in the above-mentioned school districts as the Spanish-speaking children enter school life and as they advance through the grades in the respective school districts. It is also admitted by the defendants that the petitioning children are qualified to attend the public schools in the respective districts of their residences.
In the Westminister, Garden Grove and El Modeno school districts the respective boards of trustees had taken official action, declaring that there be no segregation of pupils on a racial basis but that non-English-speaking children (which group, excepting as to a small number of pupils, was made up entirely of children of Mexican ancestry or descent), be required to attend schools designated by the boards separate and apart from English-speaking pupils; that such group should attend such schools until they had acquired some proficiency in the English language.
The petitioners contend that such official action evinces a covert attempt by the school authorities in such school districts to produce an arbitrary discrimination against school children of Mexican extraction or descent and that such illegal result has been established in such school districts respectively. The school authorities of the City of Santa Ana have not memorialized any such official action, but petitioners assert that the same custom and usage exists in the schools of the City of Santa Ana under the authority of appropriate school agencies of such city.
The concrete acts complained of are those of the various school district officials in directing which schools the petitioning children and others of the same class or group must attend. The segregation exists in the elementary schools to and including the sixth grade in two of the defendant districts, and in the two other defendant districts through the eighth grade. The record before us shows without conflict that the technical facilities and physical conveniences offered in the schools housing entirely the segregated pupils, the efficiency of the teachers therein and the curricula are identical and in some respects superior to those in the other schools in the respective districts.
The ultimate question for decision may be thus stated: Does such official action of defendant district school agencies and the usages and practices pursued by the respective school authorities as shown by the evidence operate to deny or deprive the so-called non-English-speaking school children of Mexican ancestry or descent within such school districts of the equal protection of the laws?
The defendants at the outset challenge the jurisdiction of this court under the record as it exists at this time. We have already denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the action upon the "face" of the complaint. No reason has been shown which warrants reconsideration of such decision.
While education is a State matter, it is not so absolutely or exclusively. Cumming v. Board of Education of Richmond County, 175 U.S. 528, 20 S.Ct. 197, 201, 44 L.Ed. 262. In the Cumming decision the Supreme Court said: "That education of the people in schools maintained by state taxation is a matter belonging to the respective states, and any interference on the part of Federal authority with the management of such schools cannot be justified except in the case of a clear and unmistakable disregard of rights secured by the supreme law of the land." (Emphasis supplied.) See, also, Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, 48 S. Ct. 91, 72 L.Ed. 172; Wong Him v. Callahan, C.C., 119 F. 381; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36, 17 Am.Rep. 405; Piper et al. v. Big Pine School District, 193 Cal. 664, 226 P. 926.
Obviously, then, a violation by a State of a personal right or privilege protected by the Fourteenth Amendment in the exercise of the State's duty to provide for the education of its citizens and inhabitants would justify the Federal Court to intervene. State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. 232, 83 L.Ed. 208. The complaint before us in this action, having alleged an invasion by the common school authorities of the defendant districts of the equal opportunity of pupils to acquire knowledge, confers jurisdiction on this court if the actions complained of are deemed those of the State. Hamilton v. Regents of University of California, 293 U.S. 245, 55 S.Ct. 197, 79 L.Ed. 343; cf. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042, 29 A.L.R. 1446.
Are the actions of public school authorities of a rural or city school in the State of California, as alleged and established in this case, to be considered actions of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to confer jurisdiction on this court to hear and decide this case under the authority of Section 24, Subdivision 14 of the Judicial Code, supra? We think they are.
In the public school system of the State of California the various local school districts enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy. Fundamentally, however, the people of the State have made the public school system a matter of State supervision. Such system is not committed to the exclusive control of local governments. Article IX, Constitution of California, Butterworth v. Boyd, 12 Cal.2d 140, 82 P.2d 434, 126 A.L.R. 838. It is a matter of general concern, and not a municipal affair. Esberg v. Badaracco, 202 Cal. 110, 259 P. 730; Becker v. Council of City of Albany, 47 Cal.App.2d 702, 118 P.2d 924.
The Education Code of California provides for the requirements of teachers' qualifications, the admission and exclusion of pupils, the courses of study and the enforcement of them, the duties of superintendents of schools and of the school trustees of elementary schools in the State of California. The appropriate agencies of the State of California allocate to counties all the State school money exclusively for the payment of teachers' salaries in the public schools and such funds are apportioned to the respective school districts within the counties. While, as previously observed, local school boards and trustees are vested by State legislation with considerable latitude in the administration of their districts, nevertheless, despite the decentralization of the educational system in California, the rules of the local...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. Johnson
...section 8003 and 8004 permitted school boards to segregate Indians and Orientals, although not Negroes. See Mendez v. Westminister School Dist. (S.D.Cal.1946) 64 F.Supp. 544, 548.25 The de facto or de jure character of segregation in the San Francisco schools is currently the subject of lit......
-
Hardyman v. Collins, 8004-Y.
...147 A.L.R. 674; Screws v. United States, 1945, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495, 162 A.L.R. 1330; Mendez v. Westminster School District, D.C.Cal., 1946, 64 F. Supp. 544, per McCormick, J.; Westminster School District of Orange County v. Mendez, 9 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 19 Shelley v. ......
-
Lau v. Nichols
...deficient pupils can violate the Equal Protection Clause. See Gonzales v. Sheely, 96 F.Supp. 1004 (D.Ariz.1951); Mendez v. School District, 64 F.Supp. 544 (S.D. Cal.1946), aff'd on other grounds, 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 11 "The power of the state to compel attendance at some school and to ma......
-
Kenyon v. City of Chicopee
...1924, 265 S.W. 233;Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 386-388, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604;Mendez v. Westminister School District of Orange County, D.C., 64 F.Supp. 544, 550, 551. Three cases presenting facts more or less similar to those in the case before us are Committee for Industrial Orga......
-
PATERNALISM, TOLERANCE, AND ACCEPTANCE: MODELING THE EVOLUTION OF EQUAL PROTECTION IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CANON.
...& POL'Y REP. 194, 194-95 (2004) ("Mendez was in many ways an important, albeit unrecognized, precursor to Brown."). (185.) Mendez I. 64 F. Supp. 544. 546-49, 551 (S.D. Cal. (186.) Interestingly, Brown avoids all mention of the Mendez lease. This fact is particularly curious because Earl......
-
Rejecting Honorary Whiteness: Asian Americans and the Attack on Race-conscious Admissions
...schools shall be maintained for children of the white and colored races.'").14. Id. at 86-87.15. Id. at 87.16. Mendez v. Westminster, 64 F. Supp. 544, 545-46 (S.D. Cal. 1946), aff'd, 161 F.2d 774, 781 (9th Cir. 1947).17. Id. at 549.18. Westminster v. Mendez, 161 F.2d 774, 780 (9th Cir. 1947......
-
Deconstructing the pipeline: evaluating school-to-prison pipeline equal protection cases through a structural racism framework.
...WOLLENBERG, supra note 259, at 75. (263.) Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 20-21, 23 (1948). (264.) Mendez v. Westminister Sch. Dist., 64 F. Supp. 544, 550-51 (S.D. Cal. 1946); see also WOLLENBERG, supra note 259, at (265.) WOLLENBERG, supra note 259, at 26-27, 138. (266.) Jackson v. Pasaden......
-
Book Review: The evolution of the juvenile court: Race, politics, and the criminalizing of juvenile justice
...politics, and the criminalizing of juvenile justice.New York: NYU Press.Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954).Mendez v. Westminster, 64 F. Supp. 544 (S.D. Cal. 1946).Nellis, A. (2016). The color of justice: Racial and ethnic disparity in state prisons. Washington, DC: SentencingProject. R......