From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sipuel v. Board of Regents

U.S.
Jan 12, 1948
332 U.S. 631 (1948)

Summary

In Sipuel, it was argued that the state had an insufficient opportunity to develop a separate law school for the plaintiff and that a court order admitting the plaintiff to the existing state law school would improperly foreclose the defendant's prerogative to choose which remedial option to pursue, in violation of the principles of federalism and comity.

Summary of this case from Faulkner v. Jones

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.

No. 369.

Argued January 7-8, 1948. Decided January 12, 1948.

A Negro, concededly qualified to receive professional legal education offered by a State, cannot be denied such education because of her color. The State must provide such education for her in conformity with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other group. Pp. 632-633. 199 Okla. 36, 180 P.2d 135, reversed.

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed a denial by an inferior state court of a writ of mandamus to require admission of a qualified Negro applicant to a state law school. 199 Okla. 36, 180 P.2d 135. This Court granted certiorari. 332 U.S. 814. Reversed, p. 633.

Thurgood Marshall and Amos T. Hall argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was Frank D. Reeves.

Fred Hansen, First Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Maurice H. Merrill argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief was Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General.

Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Robert W. Kenny, O. John Rogge, and Andrew D. Weinberger for the National Lawyers Guild; and Arthur Garfield Hays and Osmond K. Fraenkel for the American Civil Liberties Union.


On January 14, 1946, the petitioner, a Negro, concededly qualified to receive the professional legal education offered by the State, applied for admission to the School of Law of the University of Oklahoma, the only institution for legal education supported and maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma. Petitioner's application for admission was denied, solely because of her color.

Petitioner then made application for a writ of mandamus in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The writ of mandamus was refused, and the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 199 Okla. 36, 180 P.2d 135. We brought the case here for review.

The petitioner is entitled to secure legal education afforded by a state institution. To this time, it has been denied her although during the same period many white applicants have been afforded legal education by the State. The State must provide it for her in conformity with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other group. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938).

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Sipuel v. Board of Regents

U.S.
Jan 12, 1948
332 U.S. 631 (1948)

In Sipuel, it was argued that the state had an insufficient opportunity to develop a separate law school for the plaintiff and that a court order admitting the plaintiff to the existing state law school would improperly foreclose the defendant's prerogative to choose which remedial option to pursue, in violation of the principles of federalism and comity.

Summary of this case from Faulkner v. Jones
Case details for

Sipuel v. Board of Regents

Case Details

Full title:SIPUEL v . BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jan 12, 1948

Citations

332 U.S. 631 (1948)
68 S. Ct. 299

Citing Cases

Perez v. Sharp

In an earlier case, where a Negro contended that the state's failure to give him equal facilities with others…

State v. Board of Control of Florida

" (Italics supplied.) [ 305 U.S. 337, 59 S.Ct. 236.] See also Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U.S. 631, 68…