State of Missouri Gaines v. Canada
Decision Date | 12 December 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 57,57 |
Citation | 305 U.S. 337,83 L.Ed. 208,59 S.Ct. 232 |
Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI et rel. GAINES v. CANADA et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 337-339 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Wm. S. Hogsett, of Kansas City, Mo., and Fred L. Williams, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondents.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 339-341 intentionally omitted] Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the court.
Petitioner Lloyd Gaines, a negro, was refused admission to the School of Law of the State University of Missouri. Asserting that this refusal constituted a denial by the State of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14, petitioner brought this action for mandamus to compel the curators of the University to admit him. On final hearing, an alternative writ was quashed and a peremptory writ was denied by the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the judgment. 113 S.W.2d 783. We granted certiorari. 305 U.S. 580, 59 S.Ct. 65, 83 L.Ed. —-.
Petitioner is a citizen of Missouri. In August , 1935, he was graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Arts at the Lincoln University, an institution maintained by the State of Missouri for the higher education of negroes. That University has no law school. Upon the filing of his application for admission to the law school of the University of Missouri, the registrar advised him to communicate with the president of Lincoln University and the latter directed petitioner's attention to Section 9622 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (1929), Mo.St.Ann. § 9622, p. 7328, providing as follows:
Petitioner was advised to apply to the State Superintendent of Schools for aid under that statute. It was admitted on the trial that petitioner's 'work and credits at the Lincoln University would qualify him for admission to the School of Law of the University of Missouri if he were found otherwise eligible'. He was refused admission upon the ground that it was 'contrary to the constitution, laws and public policy of the State to admit a negro as a student in the University of Missouri'. It appears that there are schools of law in connection with the state universities of four adjacent States, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Illinois, where non-resident negroes are admitted.
The clear and definite conclusions of the state court in construing the pertinent state legislation narrow the issue. The action of the curators, who are representatives of the State in the management of the state university (R.S.Mo. Sec. 9625, Mo.St.Ann. § 9625, p. 7330), must be regarded as state action.1 The state constitution provides that separate free public schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent (Art. 11, Sec. 3), Mo.St.Ann. Const. art. 11, § 3, and by statute separate high school facilities are supplied for colored students equal to those provided for white students (R.S.Mo Secs. 9346—9349, Mo.St.Ann. §§ 9346—9349, pp. 7183—7187). While there is no express constitutional provision requiring that the white and negro races be separated for the purpose of higher education, the state court on a comprehensive review of the state statutes held that it was intended to separate the white and negro races for that purpose also. Referring in particular to Lincoln University, the court deemed it to be clear 'that the Legislature intended to bring the Lincoln University up to the standard of the University of Missouri, and give to the whites and negroes an equal opportunity for higher education—the whites at the University of Missouri, and the negroes at Lincoln University'. 113 S.W.2d 787. Further, the court concluded that the provisions of Section 9622 (above quoted) to the effect that negro residents 'may attend the university of any adjacent State with their tuition paid, pending the full development of Lincoln University', made it evident 'that the Legislature did not intend that negroes and whites should attend the same university in this State'. In that view it necessarily followed that the curators of the University of Missouri acted in accordance with the policy of the State in denying petitioner admission to its School of Law upon the sole ground of his race.
In answering petitioner's contention that this discrimination constituted a denial of his constitutional right, the state court has fully recognized the obligation of the State to provide negroes with advantages for higher education substantially equal to the advantages afforded to white students. The State has sought to fulfill that obligation by furnishing equal facilities in separate schools, a method the validity of which has been sustained by our decisions. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 544, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 1140, 41 L.Ed. 256; McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. Rwy. Co., 235 U.S. 151, 160, 35 S.Ct. 69, 70, 59 L.Ed. 169; Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, 85, 86, 48 S.Ct. 91, 93, 72 L.Ed. 172. Compare Cumming v. Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, 544, 545, 20 S.Ct. 197, 200, 44 L.Ed. 262. Respondents' counsel have appropriately emphasized the special solicitude of the State for the higher education of negroes as shown in the establishment of Lincoln University, a state institution well conducted on a plane with the University of Missouri so far as the offered courses are concerned. It is said that Missouri is a pioneer in that field and is the only State in the Union which has established a separate university for negroes on the same basis as the state university for white students. But, commendable as is that action, the fact remains that instruction in law for negroes is not now afforded by the State, either at Lincoln University or elsewhere within the State, and that the State excludes negroes from the advantages of the law school it has established at the University of Missouri.
It is manifest that this discrimination, if not relieved by the provisions we shall presently discuss, would constitute a denial of equal protection. That was the conclusion of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in circumstances substantially similar in that aspect. University of Maryland v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 A. 590, 103 A.L.R. 706. It there appeared that the State of Maryland had 'undertaken the function of education in the law' but had 'omitted students of one race from the only adequate provision made for it, and omitted them solely because of their color'; that if those students were to be offered 'equal treatment in the performance of the function, they must, at present, be admitted to the one school provided'. Id., page 489, 182 A. page 594. A provision for scholarships to enable negroes to attend colleges outside the State, mainly for the purpose of professional studies, was found to be inadequate (Id., pages 485, 486, 182 A. page 593) and the question, 'whether with aid in any amount it is sufficient to send the negroes outside the State for legal education', the Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to discuss. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus to admit the applicant was issued to the officers and regents of the University of Maryland as the agents of the State entrusted with the conduct of that institution.
The Supreme Court of Missouri in the instant case has distinguished the decision in Maryland upon the grounds—(1) that in Missouri, but not in Maryland, there is 'a legislative declaration of a purpose to establish a law school for negroes at Lincoln University whenever necessary or practical'; and (2) that, 'pending the establishment of such a school, adequate provision has been made for the legal education of negro students in recognized schools outside of this State'. 113 S.W.2d page 791.
As to the first ground, it appears that the policy of establishing a law school at Lincoln University has not yet ripened into an actual establishment, and it cannot be said that a mere declaration of purpose, still unfulfilled, is enough. The provision for legal education at Lincoln is at present entirely lacking. Respondents' counsel urge that if, on the date when petitioner applied for admission to the University of Missouri, he had instead applied to the curators of Lincoln University it would have been their duty to establish a law school; that this 'agency of the State,' to which he should have applied, was 'specifically charged with the mandatory duty to furnish him what he seeks.' We do not read the opinion of the Supreme Court as construing the state statute to impose such a 'mandatory duty' as the argument seems to assert. The state court quoted the language of Section 9618, R.S.Mo.1929, Mo.St.Ann. § 9618, p. 7327, set forth in the margin,2 making it the mandatory duty of the board of curators to establish a law school in Lincoln University 'whenever necessary and practicable in their opinion'. This qualification of their duty, explicitly stated in the statute, manifestly leaves it to the judgment of the curators to decide when it will be necessary and practicable to establish a law school, and the state court so construed the statute. Emphasizing the discretion of the curators, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hobson v. Hansen
...one of the advantaged white schools, as he did during Plessy's reign under similar circumstances. See Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. 232, 83 L.Ed. 208 (1938). He certainly is entitled to appropriate injunctive relief directed at phasing out the inequality. These t......
-
Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Virginia
...is the Scotland Neck case. 17 See Serrano, et al. v. Priest, supra, (Supreme Court of Calif.). 17a See Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. 356, 83 L.Ed. 437 (1938) 17b See Serrano v. Priest, supra, and Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District, 337 F.Supp. 28......
-
Papish v. Board of Curators of University of Missouri
...that one state cannot be held responsible for the education of citizens of another state. In State of Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 350, 59 S.Ct. 232, 236, 83 L.Ed. 208, 213-214, it was "Manifestly, the obligation of the State to give the protection of equal laws can be p......
-
Johnson v. Manson
...its own laws establishing the rights and duties of persons within its borders." (Emphasis added.) Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 350, 59 S.Ct. 232, 83 L.Ed. 208 (1938). It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was not within the jurisdiction of Connecticut when confined......
-
Legal arguments that had better be avoided.
...327 U. S. 404; Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, with Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U. S. 78, and Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337; La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U. S. 249, with Los Angeles Brush Corp. v. James, 272 U. S. 701; United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 353 ......
-
Unborn children as constitutional persons.
...U.S., at 242-43 (concurring in part and dissenting in part). (382) Plyler, 457 U.S., at 211-13 (quoting Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 350 (383) Id. at 213. (384) Id. at 214-15, which states: Although the congressional debate concerning [section] 1 of the Fourteenth Amendm......
-
Table of Cases
...Missouri v. Jenkins (Jenkins III), 515 U.S. 70, 115 S.Ct. 2038, 132 L.Ed.2d 63 (1995), 1120, 1126-27 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. 232, 83 L.Ed. 208 (1938), 445, 1067, 1110 Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. May, 194 U.S. 267, 24 S.Ct.38, 48 L.Ed. 971 (1......
-
The Equal Protection Clause
...561. [117] 245 U.S. 60, 78-82 (1917). [118] This account of the 1870 Naturalization Act appears in Siegel, supra note 5, at 554-56. [119] 305 U.S. 337, 348-52 [120] 332 U.S. 631, 632-33 (1946). [121] 339 U.S. 629, 631-36 (1950). [122] 339 U.S. 637, 638-42 (1950). [123] 334 U.S. 1, 11-12 (19......