Supreme Court of the United States · 1956 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional Lawequal protectionracial segregationper curiam affirmanceBrown v. Board of Educationpublic transportationconstitutional law
Facts
The per curiam opinion does not recite the underlying facts in detail. It identifies the case by reference to the lower court judgment reported at 142 F. Supp. 707. In affirming, the Court cited Brown v. Board of Education, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Dawson, and Holmes v. Atlanta. Those citations indicate the case involved enforced racial segregation challenged on constitutional grounds.
Issue
Whether the lower court judgment invalidating enforced racial segregation should be affirmed under the principles recognized in Brown v. Board of Education and the Court's related segregation decisions.
Rule
State-enforced racial segregation is unconstitutional under the principles applied in Brown v. Board of Education and the Court's related per curiam segregation decisions.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
The city council of Birmingham enacts an ordinance requiring Black and white riders to sit in separate sections of city-operated streetcars. Several riders sue, and a federal court declares the ordinance unconstitutional. On direct review, the city argues that anti-segregation precedent applies only to public schools, not municipal transit.
How should the reviewing court rule?
Explanation. The controlling doctrine is that state-enforced racial segregation is unconstitutional under the principles applied in Brown and related segregation decisions. The majority opinion relied directly on those precedents and did not confine the rule to schools. Because the segregation here is mandated by government in a public service, the lower court's invalidation should be affirmed. (Derived from Browder v. Gayle (1956).)