Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Evans v. Abney

Supreme Court of the United States · 1970 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPropertycharitable trustsegregated parkcy presresulting truststate actionequal protection

Facts

Senator A. O. Bacon's 1911 will devised land to the City of Macon in trust as a public park for the exclusive use of white people, and the city accepted the trust with those racial restrictions. In Evans v. Newton, the Supreme Court held that Baconsfield, because of its public character, could not continue to operate on a racially discriminatory basis. On remand, the Georgia courts concluded that the testator's intent was limited to a segregated white-only park, that this specific purpose had become impossible, and that Georgia's cy pres doctrine could not be used to strike the racial restrictions. The courts therefore held that the trust failed and that, under Georgia law, the property reverted to Bacon's heirs through a resulting trust.

Issue

Whether the Georgia courts violated the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by terminating a charitable trust for a segregated public park, refusing to apply cy pres to preserve the park on an integrated basis, and returning the property to the testator's heirs under neutral Georgia trust law.

Rule

A state court does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment when, acting in its judicial capacity, it fairly applies normal and neutral state rules of will construction and trust law to determine that a charitable trust has failed because its specific purpose has become impossible, and therefore declines to apply cy pres where the testator lacked a general charitable intent and instead allows a resulting trust to arise for the heirs. The Constitution does not require state courts to construe such a will differently merely because the trust's failure follows from the invalidity of a racial restriction.

🔒

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.

In Savannah, Lena Whitmore's will devises land to the city in trust for a free public garden open only to descendants of Italian immigrants. The will repeatedly states that the garden is to be used "only and forever" for that class and "for no other purpose whatsoever." After a court holds the ancestry restriction unconstitutional for a public facility, a Georgia court finds Whitmore would have preferred closure to opening the garden to everyone.

If challengers argue that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the state court to strike the invalid restriction and keep the garden open under cy pres, how should the court rule under the majority's approach?

Explanation. The majority held that a state court does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment by applying neutral will-construction and trust principles to find that a charitable trust had a specific, inseparable purpose, lacked general charitable intent, and therefore could not be saved by cy pres. If the donor preferred the particular restricted use and would have preferred failure to alteration, cy pres is unavailable and a resulting trust may arise.