Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority

Supreme Court of the United States · 1961 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionState ActionFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection Clausestate actionpublic propertypublic-private interdependence

Facts

The Wilmington Parking Authority, a state agency, owned and operated a public parking building and leased space within it to Eagle Coffee Shoppe for use as a restaurant and related purposes. The Authority constructed and maintained the building, provided utilities and structural repairs for the leased premises, and relied on commercial leases as an integral and indispensable part of financing the public facility. The building was publicly owned, dedicated to public use, marked with official signs, and flew state and national flags. After parking in the building, Burton entered Eagle's restaurant and was refused service solely because he was a Negro.

Issue

Whether a private restaurant lessee's refusal to serve a Black patron, when the restaurant operates within a publicly owned and publicly maintained parking facility under the circumstances shown here, constitutes discriminatory state action subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

Private discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause only when the State has become involved to a significant extent. No precise formula governs; state responsibility is determined by sifting facts and weighing circumstances, and where the State leases public property in a manner and for a purpose that makes the lessee's operation an integral, indispensable, and mutually beneficial part of a public project, the lessee must comply with the Fourteenth Amendment as if that obligation were written into the lease.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The City Transit Facilities Board of Cleveland, a state-created public authority, builds a downtown bus terminal that it owns and operates. To make the project financially viable, it leases the central concourse food hall to Lakeside Grill, agrees to maintain the structure and utilities serving the space, and relies on the rent to meet bond obligations; Lakeside Grill refuses to serve Black customers.

Is the restaurant's discrimination most likely attributable to the State under the Equal Protection Clause?

Explanation. The majority held that no precise formula governs state action; courts must sift facts and weigh circumstances. Where a state agency owns the property, maintains it, and depends on the commercial lease as an integral and indispensable part of a self-sustaining public project, the mutual benefits and interdependence can make the State a joint participant in the challenged discrimination. Public accommodations status alone is not enough, and the issue is not whether food service is a traditional government function.