Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Evans v. Newton

Supreme Court of the United States · 1966 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionState ActionFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection Clausestate actionpublic functionmunicipal park

Facts

Senator Augustus O. Bacon's 1911 will devised land to the Mayor and Council of Macon to be used as a park for white people only, under the control of an all-white board of managers. The city operated the park for years as part of its activities and at first kept it segregated, but later allowed Negroes to use it because it believed it could not constitutionally maintain a segregated public facility. Members of the board then sued to remove the city as trustee and replace it with private trustees so the racial restriction could continue. The Georgia court accepted the city's resignation and appointed private trustees, despite intervention by Negro citizens who argued the racial limitation was unlawful.

Issue

Whether a park long operated as a municipal public facility may, after the city's resignation as trustee and substitution of private trustees, continue to be treated as private enough to exclude Negroes without violating the Fourteenth Amendment. More specifically, whether the park's operation under private trustees remained state action because of its public character and municipal history.

Rule

Conduct formally labeled private is subject to the Fourteenth Amendment when it is so entwined with governmental policies or so impregnated with a governmental character as to become state action. Where a park has a firmly established tradition of municipal control and its predominant character and purpose are municipal, the mere substitution of private trustees does not automatically convert it into a private institution free from Equal Protection constraints.

🔒

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, a waterfront garden had been operated for 40 years by the city as part of its parks department, open to all residents except that a donor's deed purported to limit entry to white patrons. After the city concluded it could not constitutionally enforce that restriction, a state court accepted the city's resignation as trustee and appointed three private residents to hold title, while the garden continued to function exactly as before.

If the new trustees now exclude Black residents, is the exclusion most likely subject to the Fourteenth Amendment?

Explanation. The majority held that formal labels do not control. Conduct nominally private may still be state action when it is so entwined with governmental policies or so impregnated with a governmental character as to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment. Where a park-like facility has long been an integral part of municipal activities and continues to serve a municipal public function, the mere substitution of private trustees does not automatically erase its public character.