HomeCase briefs › Constitutional Law

Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts

Supreme Court of the United States · 1957 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawFourteenth AmendmentState ActionEqual ProtectionRacial Discrimination in EducationFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protectionstate action

Facts

Stephen Girard's will, probated in 1831, left a trust fund for a college that was to admit as many poor white male orphans between ages six and ten as the income could maintain. The will named the City of Philadelphia as trustee, and the college was opened in 1848. Since 1869, under an act of the Pennsylvania Legislature, the trust and college have been administered by the Board of Directors of City Trusts of the City of Philadelphia. In 1954, Foust and Felder applied for admission, met all qualifications except that they were Negroes, and were denied admission for that reason.

Issue

Whether the Board of Directors of City Trusts, in refusing admission to qualified applicants solely because they were Negroes while operating Girard College as trustee, was engaging in state discrimination prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

When an entity operating a school is an agency of the State, its exclusion of applicants because of race constitutes discrimination by the State and is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment, even if the entity is acting as a trustee.

🔒

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 Baltimore, a residential academy was created decades ago under a private donor's trust for children from low-income families. The academy is now administered by the Harbor City Trust Board, a body created by Maryland statute, and the board rejects Malik Reed solely because he is Black while saying it is merely carrying out the donor's directions.

If Malik brings a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection challenge, which is the strongest argument for him under the controlling rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion turns on one point: when the entity operating the school is an agency of the State, its exclusion of applicants because of race is discrimination by the State, even if the entity is acting as trustee under a private will. The private origin of the trust does not prevent Fourteenth Amendment application once the operator is a state agency. (Derived from Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts (1957).)