BROWN ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF TOPEKA ET AL.
No. 8
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
344 U.S. 1; 73 S. Ct. 1; 97 L. Ed. 3; 1952 U.S. LEXIS 1953
October 8, 1952, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF KANSAS. *
* Together with No. 101, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., Members of Board of
Trustees of School District #22, on appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina; and No. 191; Davis et al. v. County
School of Prince Edward County et al., on appeal from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The following are citations to the reports of the decisions below: No. 8, the
Kansas case, 98
F.Supp. 797; No. 101, the South Carolina case, 103
F.Supp. 920; No. 191, the Virginia case, 103
F.Supp. 337.
CORE TERMS: Fourteenth Amendment, segregation, Fifth Amendment,
immediately following, public schools, school board, violative, entertain,
probable, raising
SYLLABUS: In two cases set for argument in October, laws of Kansas
and South Carolina providing for racial segregation in public schools were
challenged as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. In another case raising
the same question with respect to laws of Virginia, appellants had filed a
statement of jurisdiction and a motion requesting that all three cases be
argued together. There was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit a case in which segregation in public schools
of the District of Columbia was challenged as violative of the Fifth Amendment.
Held:
1. The Kansas and South Carolina cases are continued on the docket; probable
jurisdiction is noted in the Virginia case; and arguments in all three will be
heard in December. Pp. 2-3.
2. Judicial notice is taken of the pendency of the District of Columbia case.
The Court will entertain a petition for certiorari in that case, which, if
presented and granted, will afford opportunity for argument of that case
immediately following arguments in the other three cases. P. 3
COUNSEL: Robert L. Carter, Thurgood Marshall, Spottswood W.
Robinson, III, George E. C. Hayes, George M. Johnson, William R. Ming, Jr.,
James M. Nabrit, Jr. and Frank D. Reeves for appellants. Oliver W. Hill was
also with them on the brief in No. 191.
T. C. Callison, Attorney General of South Carolina, John W. Davis, Robert McC.
Figg, Jr. and William R. Meagher for appellees in No. 101.
J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General, and Henry T. Wickham, Assistant
Attorney General, for the State of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore, Archibald G.
Robertson and John W. Riely for the Prince Edward County School Board et al.,
appellees in No. 191.
JUDGES: Vinson, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson, Burton,
Clark, Minton
OPINIONBY: PER CURIAM
OPINION: [**1] [*2] [***3] In two appeals now pending, No. 8, Brown et al.
v. Board of Education of Topeka et al., and No. 101, Briggs et al.
v. Elliott et al., the appellants challenge, respectively, the constitutionality
of a statute of Kansas, and a statute and the Constitution of South Carolina,
which provide for segregation in the schools of these states. Appellants allege
that segregation is, per se, a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Argument in these cases has heretofore been set for the week of
October 13, 1952.
In No. 191, Davis et al. v. County School Board
of Prince Edward County et al., the appellants have filed a statement of jurisdiction
raising the same issue in respect to a statute and the Constitution of
Virginia. Appellees in the Davis case have called attention to the
similarity between it and the Briggs and Brown cases; by motion [*3] they have asked the Court to take necessary
action to have all three cases argued together.
[**2] This Court takes judicial
notice of a fourth case, which is pending in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al., No. [***4] 11,018 on that court's docket. In that case,
the appellants challenge the appellees' refusal to admit certain Negro
appellants to a segregated white school in the District of Columbia; they
allege that appellees have taken such action pursuant to certain Acts of
Congress; they allege that such action is a violation of the Fifth Amendment of
the Constitution.
The Court is of the opinion that the nature of the issue posed in those appeals
now before the Court involving the Fourteenth Amendment, and also the effect of
any decision which it may render in those cases, are such that it would be well
to consider, simultaneously, the constitutional issue posed in the case of Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al.
To the end that arguments may be heard together in all four of these cases, the
Court will continue the Brown and Briggs cases on its docket. Probable
jurisdiction is noted in Davis et al. v. County School Board
of Prince Edward County et al. Arguments will be heard in these three cases at the
first argument session in December.
The Court will entertain a petition for certiorari in the case of Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al., 28
U. S. C. §§ 1254 (1), 2101 (e), which if presented and granted will afford
opportunity for argument of the case immediately following the arguments in the
three appeals now pending.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents from postponing argument and decision in the three
cases presently here for Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al., in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.