Gilmore v. City of Montgomery

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsEqual ProtectionState ActionSchool DesegregationInjunctive Reliefstate actionequal protectionpublic facilities

Facts

Petitioners, Negro citizens of Montgomery, had previously obtained a federal decree enjoining enforcement of segregation in the city's parks and requiring the elimination of discriminatory customs, practices, policies, or usages. The record showed that after that decree the city had engaged in efforts to circumvent desegregation, including coordinated segregated recreational programming through the YMCA and unequal maintenance of facilities in Negro neighborhoods. Petitioners later alleged that the city was allowing segregated private schools and other private groups with racially discriminatory admissions policies to use city recreational facilities. The District Court barred use of city facilities by such private schools and groups, and the Court of Appeals limited that relief to exclusive use by private schools while rejecting the broader nonschool-group prohibition.

Issue

Whether a federal court may enjoin a city from permitting public recreational facilities to be used by racially segregated private schools and by other private groups with racially discriminatory admissions policies. More specifically, whether the city's provision of such facilities constitutes impermissible state action or unlawful aid in violation of existing desegregation obligations.

Rule

A city may be enjoined from permitting private segregated schools exclusive access to public recreational facilities when that assistance significantly tends to facilitate, reinforce, or support private discrimination and to impede compliance with outstanding school desegregation orders. But a blanket prohibition on mere use of municipal recreational facilities by all discriminatory private nonschool groups is invalid absent a proper, fact-specific finding of significant state involvement; generalized governmental services or facilities simply available to all comers do not alone establish state action.

🔒

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 Jackson, Mississippi, the city parks department reserves the entire municipal football stadium for Friday-night home games of Pine Hollow Academy, a private school that excludes Black applicants. The public school district remains under a federal desegregation decree, and the city knows Pine Hollow advertises the stadium access to attract families.

A federal court is asked to bar the city from continuing this arrangement. What is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that a city may be enjoined from permitting exclusive access to public recreational facilities by segregated private schools when that assistance significantly tends to facilitate, reinforce, and support private discrimination and undermine an outstanding desegregation order. Exclusive possession is important here not as a rigid test, but because it shows affirmative municipal allocation and support. (Derived from Gilmore v. City of Montgomery (n.d.).)