From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bolling v. Sharpe

U.S.
May 17, 1954
347 U.S. 497 (1954)

Summary

holding that the District of Columbia's maintenance of segregated schools violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Gabrion

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.

No. 8.

Argued December 10-11, 1952. Reargued December 8-9, 1953. Decided May 17, 1954.

Racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial to Negro children of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 498-500.

(a) Though the Fifth Amendment does not contain an equal protection clause, as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the States, the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive. P. 499.

(b) Discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process. P. 499.

(c) Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 499-500.

(d) In view of this Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, ante, p. 483, that the Constitution prohibits the States from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government. P. 500.

(e) The case is restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the form of the decree. P. 500.

George E. C. Hayes and James M. Nabrit, Jr. argued the cause for petitioners on the original argument and on the reargument. With them on the briefs were George M. Johnson and Herbert O. Reid, Jr. Charles W. Quick was also on the brief on the reargument.

Milton D. Korman argued the cause for respondents on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs were Vernon E. West, Chester H. Gray and Lyman J. Umstead.

By special leave of Court, Assistant Attorney General Rankin argued the cause on the reargument for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief were Attorney General Brownell, Philip Elman, Leon Ulman, William J. Lamont and M. Magdelena Schoch. James P. McGranery, then Attorney General, and Philip Elman filed a brief on the original argument for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Briefs of amici curiae supporting petitioners were filed by S. Walter Shine, Sanford H. Bolz and Samuel B. Groner for the American Council on Human Rights et al.; by John Ligtenberg and Selma M. Borchardt for the American Federation of Teachers; and by Phineas Indritz for the American Veterans Committee, Inc.


This case challenges the validity of segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia. The petitioners, minors of the Negro race, allege that such segregation deprives them of due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. They were refused admission to a public school attended by white children solely because of their race. They sought the aid of the District Court for the District of Columbia in obtaining admission. That court dismissed their complaint. The Court granted a writ of certiorari before judgment in the Court of Appeals because of the importance of the constitutional question presented. 344 U.S. 873.

We have this day held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools. The legal problem in the District of Columbia is somewhat different, however. The Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the District of Columbia, does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The "equal protection of the laws" is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than "due process of law," and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.

Brown v. Board of Education, ante, p. 483.

Detroit Bank v. United States, 317 U.S. 329; Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 13-14; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 585.

Classifications based solely upon race must be scrutinized with particular care, since they are contrary to our traditions and hence constitutionally suspect. As long ago as 1896, this Court declared the principle "that the Constitution of the United States, in its present form, forbids, so far as civil and political rights are concerned, discrimination by the General Government, or by the States, against any citizen because of his race." And in Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60, the Court held that a statute which limited the right of a property owner to convey his property to a person of another race was, as an unreasonable discrimination, a denial of due process of law.

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216; Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100.

Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565, 591. Cf. Steele v. Louisville Nashville R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 198-199.

Although the Court has not assumed to define "liberty" with any great precision, that term is not confined to mere freedom from bodily restraint. Liberty under law extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective. Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause.

In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government. We hold that racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Cf. Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U.S. 24.

For the reasons set out in Brown v. Board of Education, this case will be restored to the docket for reargument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court. 345 U.S. 972.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Bolling v. Sharpe

U.S.
May 17, 1954
347 U.S. 497 (1954)

holding that the District of Columbia's maintenance of segregated schools violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Gabrion

holding that despite lack of explicit equal protection clause, "discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process"

Summary of this case from Igartúa-de la Rosa v. United States

holding that the Fifth Amendment and § 1331 created a remedy for unconstitutional racial discrimination in the D.C. public school system

Summary of this case from Simmat v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons

holding District of Columbia school segregation to violate fifth amendment's due process clause

Summary of this case from United States v. Hubbard

holding racial segregation violates due process

Summary of this case from Penn v. Schlesinger

holding that school segregation in the District of Columbia violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause

Summary of this case from Jiggetts v. Cipullo

holding that Fifth Amendment prohibits racial segregation in public schools of the District of Columbia

Summary of this case from Bellocchio v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot.

holding that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to the states, but recognizing that the Fifth Amendment implicitly guarantees equal protection from the federal government

Summary of this case from Karr v. Astrue

holding that the Equal Protection Clause applies to federal government action via the Fifth Amendment

Summary of this case from Adams v. U.S.

holding that equal protection principles are binding on the federal government through the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause

Summary of this case from U.S. v. C.R.

holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment places the same restrictions on actions by the federal government that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment places on state governments

Summary of this case from Diaz-Pena v. Warden, Federal Correctional Inst.

holding that the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia

Summary of this case from Powers-Bunce v. District of Columbia

holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment places the same restrictions on actions by the federal government that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment places on state governments

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Green

holding that the Fifth Amendment's due process clause contains an implicit right to equal protection

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Lindh

holding that the principles embodied by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that prohibited States from maintaining racially segregated schools were applicable in the District of Columbia by virtue of the Fifth Amendment due process clause

Summary of this case from Adams v. Clinton

holding that the principles embodied by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that prohibited States from maintaining racially segregated schools were applicable in the District of Columbia by virtue of the Fifth Amendment due process clause

Summary of this case from Adams v. Clinton

holding that the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause contains an equal protection component applicable to the federal government

Summary of this case from Ayers v. Norris

holding that the District's racially segregated school system violated the implied equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause

Summary of this case from Com. of Va. v. Reno

holding that segregated schooling in the District of Columbia violated equal protection

Summary of this case from DuPhily v. DuPhily

finding equal protection component to Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause notwithstanding absence of express equal protection guarantee

Summary of this case from Tate v. District of Columbia

finding an equal protection component under the Fifth Amendment

Summary of this case from Hollis v. Lynch

finding equal protection component in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment

Summary of this case from Marshall v. Reno

concluding that "[s]eparate educational facilities are inherently unequal"

Summary of this case from Dean v. District of Columbia

deciding a race discrimination claim against the federal government

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Biaggi

recognizing equal protection component of Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Moore
Case details for

Bolling v. Sharpe

Case Details

Full title:BOLLING ET AL. v . SHARPE ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 17, 1954

Citations

347 U.S. 497 (1954)
74 S. Ct. 693

Citing Cases

Blocker v. Board of Education of Manhasset, New York

The Court held that the plaintiffs, "by reason of the segregation complained of," were deprived of the equal…

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

Pp. 212-225. (b) However, a year after Croson, the Court, in MetroBroadcasting, upheld two federal race-based…