Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Johnson v. Virginia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1963 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionSegregation in public facilitiesCourtroom segregationEqual Protectionracial segregationpublic facilitiescourtroom seating

Facts

Johnson, a Negro, sat in the Richmond Traffic Court in a section reserved for whites. After the bailiff asked him to move and he refused, the judge ordered him to sit in the section reserved for Negroes. Johnson remained standing with his arms folded, said he preferred standing, and indicated he would not comply; he was then arrested for contempt. He was not boisterous or abusive, there was no disorder, and the State conceded that spectator seating in the courtroom was assigned by race.

Issue

Whether a State may constitutionally convict a person of contempt when the conviction rests entirely on the person's refusal to comply with racially segregated seating requirements in a courtroom.

Rule

A State may not constitutionally require segregation of public facilities. State-compelled segregation in a court of justice violates the State's duty to deny no one the equal protection of its laws, and a conviction based entirely on refusal to comply with such segregation is invalid.

🔒

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a municipal court in Birmingham, Alabama, spectators are directed by court staff to sit on different sides of the gallery based on race. Devin Cole, a Black spectator, quietly remains in the section designated for white spectators, refuses the judge's order to move, and is convicted of contempt after neither speaking loudly nor interrupting proceedings.

Is Devin's contempt conviction constitutional?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that a State may not constitutionally require racial segregation in public facilities, including a courtroom. When the totality of the circumstances shows that the arrest and conviction rested entirely on refusal to comply with racially segregated seating, the conviction cannot stand. The absence of boisterous, abusive, or disorderly conduct makes clear there is no independent basis for contempt.