{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"mum_mseduc_1007","title":"Vesper Service of the Senior Class of the University High School","collection_id":"mum_mseduc","collection_title":"Mississippi Education Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Mississippi, Lafayette County, Oxford, 34.3665, -89.51925"],"dcterms_creator":["University of Mississippi. University High School"],"dc_date":["1954-05-23"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":["ms_ed_b1_f56"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Mississippi Education Collection, http://purl.oclc.org/umarchives/MUM00305/"],"dcterms_subject":["Mississippi Education Association","Education--Mississippi--History","Mississippi Economic Council"],"dcterms_title":["Vesper Service of the Senior Class of the University High School"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://egrove.olemiss.edu/ms_educ/118"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: Mississippi Education Collection, Archives and Special Collections, University of Mississippi"],"dlg_local_right":["Images in this collection are for personal use only. These items may not be reproduced, re-posted or saved except under fair use, as stipulated by U.S. Copyright Law : reproduction is not to be \"used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.\""],"dcterms_medium":["programs (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid32_32289","title":"Memphis World, 1954 May 21st","collection_id":"tws_oid32","collection_title":"Memphis World","dcterms_contributor":["Beauchamp, J. A."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1954-05-21"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":["MW_v22n76_1954-05-21"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Memphis World Collection"],"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights","Race","African Americans"],"dcterms_title":["Memphis World, 1954 May 21st"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/32289"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["newspapers"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_evenhand_br0096s","title":"Anson Phelps Stokes to Channing Tobias, Chairman of the NAACP, offering congratulations on the NAACP's victory in Brown v. Board of Education.","collection_id":"loc_evenhand","collection_title":"With an Even Hand: Brown vs. Board at Fifty","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729"],"dcterms_creator":["Stokes, Anson Phelps, 1874-1958"],"dc_date":["1954-05-18"],"dcterms_description":["This telegram, dated May 18, 1954, was sent from Anson Phelps Stokes to Channing Tobias, Chairman of the NAACP, celebrating the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Stokes offers special congratulations to Thurgood Marshall, who served as an attorney on the case.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the \"With an Even Hand\": Brown v. Board at Fifty Collection, Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, Washington, D.C."],"dcterms_subject":["Discrimination in education--Law and legislation--United States","Segregation in education--United States","Discrimination in education--United States","Segregation in education--Law and legislation--United States","African Americans--Civil rights--History--20th century","Topeka (Kan.). Board of Education--Trials, litigation, etc.","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People","Civil rights--United States","African American lawyers--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Anson Phelps Stokes to Channing Tobias, Chairman of the NAACP, offering congratulations on the NAACP's victory in Brown v. Board of Education."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0096s.jpg"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:loc_evenhand_br0096s"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["telegrams"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Stokes, Anson Phelps, 1874-1958","Tobias, Channing Heggie, 1882-1961","Marshall, Thurgood, 1908-1993"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"int_jjhp_249367","title":"[Letter from Roy Hofheinz to John J. Herrera - 1954-05-18]","collection_id":"int_jjhp","collection_title":"John J. Herrera Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Texas, Harris County, Houston, 29.76328, -95.36327"],"dcterms_creator":["Hofheinz, Roy, 1912-1982"],"dc_date":["1954-05-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/png"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["People--Ethnic Groups--Hispanics","Social Life and Customs--Customs--Celebrations","Commencement ceremonies","Mayors--Texas--Houston","Letters"],"dcterms_title":["[Letter from Roy Hofheinz to John J. Herrera - 1954-05-18]","[Letter from Roy Hofheinz to John J. Herrera - May 18, 1954]"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Texas. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth249367/"],"dcterms_temporal":["1939/2019"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)"],"dcterms_extent":["2 p. ; 27 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Hofheinz, Roy, 1912-1982","Herrera, John J."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tws_oid32_32288","title":"Memphis World, 1954 May 18th","collection_id":"tws_oid32","collection_title":"Memphis World","dcterms_contributor":["Beauchamp, J. A."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1954-05-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":["MW_v22n75_1954-05-18"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Memphis World Collection"],"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights","Race","African Americans"],"dcterms_title":["Memphis World, 1954 May 18th"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Rhodes College"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.handle.net/10267/32288"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["newspapers"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_p17173coll24_105","title":"The News \u0026 Courier, Public School Segregation Outlawed, May 18, 1954","collection_id":"suc_p17173coll24","collection_title":"Briggs v. Elliott","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Charleston County, 32.74917, -79.94202","United States, South Carolina, Charleston County, Charleston, 32.77657, -79.93092"],"dcterms_creator":["The News and Courier"],"dc_date":["1954-05-18"],"dcterms_description":["Various pages of the May 18, 1954 issue of The News and Courier that relates to the Clarendon court case on segregation in public schools."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Carolina Political Collections"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Briggs v. Elliott","William D. Workman Papers, Box 44, South Carolina Political Collections, University of South Carolina."],"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--South Carolina--History--20th century","Civil rights--South Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["The News \u0026 Courier, Public School Segregation Outlawed, May 18, 1954"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of South Carolina. Libraries","South Caroliniana Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://cdm17173.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p17173coll24/id/105"],"dcterms_temporal":["1946/1954"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For further information please contact the University of South Carolina, South Carolina Political Collections, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":["3 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Workman, William D. (William Douglas), 1914-1990"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"dlg_bald_ph-57","title":"Oh, fiddle-de-dee, I'll put that off 'till tomorrow! / Baldy, [1954 May 18].","collection_id":"dlg_bald","collection_title":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434"],"dcterms_creator":["Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999"],"dc_date":["1954-05-18"],"dcterms_description":["The Clifford \"Baldy\" Baldowski cartoon depicts Scarlett O'Hara, the \"South,\" being shown the Supreme Court Decision [of 1954] as she combs her hair in front of a mirror."],"dc_format":["image/jp2"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["[Atlanta, Ga. : Atlanta Constitution], 1954 May 18]"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoon Collection, Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries, Athens, Georgia"],"dcterms_subject":["O'Hara, Scarlett (Fictitious character)","Southern states--Race relations","School integration--Law and legislation--Southern states"],"dcterms_title":["Oh, fiddle-de-dee, I'll put that off 'till tomorrow! / Baldy, [1954 May 18]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_bald_ph-57#item"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/dlg_bald_ph-57"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["The Baldowski cartoons created for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution are licensed to the Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.","Contact repository re: reproduction and usage."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: [Title of the cartoon], [Date of cartoon], editorial cartoon by Clifford H. Baldowski, Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoon Collection, Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia Libraries, Athens, presented in the Digital Library of Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["editorial cartoons"],"dcterms_extent":["1 item ; 28 x 35 cm. paper pen and ink."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_812","title":"Court filings: Supreme Court of the United States, decision, Brown et al v. Board of Education of Topeka et al.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1954-05-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Court records","Civil rights--United States","Educational law and legislation","Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka","African Americans--Civil rights","African Americans--Legal status, laws, etc.","African Americans--Segregation","United States--History--20th century"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Supreme Court of the United States, decision, Brown et al v. Board of Education of Topeka et al."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/812"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n482  OCTOBER TERM, 1953. Opinion of the Court. 347 u. s. the complete exclusion of negroes from jury service, the constitutional provision ... would be but a vain and illusory requirement.\" 15 The same reasoning is applicable to these facts. Circumstances or chance may well dictate that no persons in a certain class will serve on a particular jury or during some particular period. But it taxes our credulity to say that mere chance resulted in there being no members of this class among the over six thousand jurors called in the past 25 years. The result bespeaks discrimination, whether or not it was a conscious decision on the part of. any individual jury commissioner. The judgment of conviction must be reversed. To say that this decision reviyes the rejected contention that the Fourteenth Amendment requires proportional representation of all the component ethnic groups of the community on every jury 18 ignores the facts. The petitioner did not. seek proportional representation, nor did he claim a right to have persons of Mexican descent sit on the particular juries which he.f aced.11 His only claim is the right to be .indicted and tried by juries from which all members of his class are not systematically excludedjuries selected from among all qualified persons regardless of national origin or descent. To this much, he is entitled by the Constitution. Reversed. 15 294 U.S., at 598. 18 See Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398, 403\nCassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282, 286-287. 17 See Akins v. Texas, supra, note 16, at 403. - BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATIOI Syllabus. BROWN ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA .ET AL. 483 NO. 1. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.* Argued December 9, 1952.-Reargued December 8, 1953.Decided May 17, 1954. Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendmenteven though the physical facilities and other \"tangible\" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal. Pp. 486-496. (a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education. Pp. 489-490. (b) The question presented in these cases must be determined, not on the basis of conditions existing wheri the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of. the full develop111ent of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Pp. 492-493. (c) Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. P. 493. (d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other \"tangible\" factors may be equal. Pp. 493-494. (e) The \"separate but equal\" doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U._S. 537, has no place in the field of public education. P. 495. *Together with No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953\nNo. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953\nand No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953. 484 - OCTOBER TERM, 1953. Counsel for Parties. 347 u. s. (f) The cases are restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the forms of the decrees. Pp. 495--496. Robert L. Carter argued the cause for appellants in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for appellants in No. 2 on the original argument and Spottswood W. Robinson, III, for appellants in No. 4 on the original argument, and both argued the causes for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. Louis L. Redding and Jack Greenberg argued the cause for respondents in No. 10 on the original argument and Jack Greenberg and Thurgood Marshall on the reargument. On the briefs were Robert L. Carter, Thurgood Marshall, Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Louis L. Redding, Jack Greenberg, George E. C. Hayes, William R. Ming, Jr., Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, Jr., Charles S. Scott, Frank D. Reeves, Harold R. Boulware and Oliver W. Hill for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents in No. 10\nGeorge M. Johnson for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4\nand Loren Miller for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4. Arthur D. Shores and A. T. Walden were on the Statement as to Jurisdiction and a brief opposing a Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in No. 2. Paul E. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General of Kansas, argued the cause for appellees in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney General. John W. Davis argued the cause for appellees in No. 2 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. With him on the briefs in No. 2 were T. C. Callison, Attorney General of South Carolina, Robert McC. Figg, Jr., S. E. Rogers, William R. Meagher and Taggart Whipple. BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATIO- 485 483 Counsel for Parties. J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore argued the cause for appellees in No. 4 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. On the briefs in No. 4 were J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General, and Henry T. Wickham, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore, Archibald G. Robertson, John W. Riely and T. Justin Moore, Jr. for the Prince Edward County School Authorities, appellees. H. Albert Young, Attorney General of Delaware, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 10 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Louis J. Finger, Special Deputy Attorney General. By special leave of Court, Assistant Attorney General Rankin argued the cause for the United States on the reargument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10. 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 for the United States on the original argument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10. Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 were filed by Shad Polier, Will Maslow and Joseph B. Robison for the American Jewish Congress\nby Edwin J. Lukas, Arnold Forster, Arthur Garfield Hays, Frank E. Karelsen, Leonard Haas, Saburo Kido and Theodore Leskes for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.\nand by John Ligtenberg and Selma M. Borchardt for the American Federation of Teachers. Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 and respondents in No. 10 were filed by Arthur J. Goldberg and Thomas E. Harris 486 OCTOBER TERM, 1953. Opinion of the Court .. 347 u. s. for the Congress of Industrial Organizations and by Phineas lndritz for the American Veterans Committee, Inc. MR. CHIEF JusTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.1 1 In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute which permits, hut does not require, cities of more than 15,000 population to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students. Kan. Gen. Stat.  72--1724 (1949). Pursuant to that authority, the Topeka Board of Education elected to\" establish segregated elementary schools. Other public schools in the community, however, are operated on a nonsegregated basis. The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U. S. C.  2281 and 2284, found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon Negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the Negro and white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. 98 F. Supp. 797. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C.  1253. In the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in Clarendon County. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. S. C. Const., Art. XI,  7\nS. C. Code  5377 ( 1942). The threejudge District Court, convened under 28 U. S. C.  2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The court found that the Negro schools were inferior to the white schools and ordered the defendants to begin i=ediately to equalize the facilities. But the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admis- BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCA TI. 487 483 Opinion of the Court. In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, sion to the white schools during the equalization program. 98 F. Supp. 529. This Court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for the purpose of obtaining the court's views on a report filed by the defendants concerning the progress made in the equalization program. 342 U. S. 350. On remand, the District Court found that substantial equality had been achieved except for buildings and that the defendants were proceeding to rectify this inequality as well. 103 F. Supp. 920. The case is again here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C.  1253. In the Virginia case, Davis v. County School Board, the plaintiffs are Negro children of high school age residing in Prince Edward County. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Va. Const.,  140\nVa. Code  22--221 (1950). The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U. S. C.  2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The court found the Negro school inferior in physical plant, curricula, and transportation, and ordered the defendants forthwith to provide substantially equal curricula and transportation and to \"proceed with all reasonable diligence and dispatch to remove\" the inequality in physical plant. But, as in the South Carolina case, the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 103 F. Supp. 337. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C.  1253. In the Delaware case, Gebhart v. Belton, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in New Castle County. They brought this action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Del. Const., Art. X,  2\nDel. Rev. Code  2631 ( 1935). The Chancellor gave judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered their immediate admission to schools previously attended only by white children, on the ground that the Negro schools were inferior with respect to teacher training, pupil-teacher ratio, extracurricular activities, physical plant, and time and distance in- 288037 0-54-36 488 - OCTOBER TERM, 1953. Opinion of the Court. 347 u. s. they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called \"separate but equal\" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools. The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not \"equal\" and cannot be made \"equal,\" and that hence they are deprived of the. equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction.2 Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.3 volved in travel. 87 A. 2d 862. The Chancellor also found that segregation itself results in an inferior education for Negro children (see note 10, infra), but did not rest his decision on that ground. / d., at 865. The Chancellor's decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Delaware, which intimated, however, that the defendants might be able to obtain a modification of the decree after equalization of the Negro and white schools had been accomplished. 91 A. 2d 137, 152. The defendants, contending only that the Delaware courts had erred in ordering the immediate admission of the Negro plaintiffs to the white schools, applied to this Court for certiorari. The writ was granted, 344 U. S. 891. The plaintiffs, who were successful below, did not submit a cross-petition. 2 344 u. s. 1, 141, 891. s 345 U. S. 972. The Attorney General of the United States participated both Terms as amicus curiae. 483 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATI0.489 Opinion of the Court. Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among \"all persons born or naturalized in the United States.\" Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment's history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public education at that time. In the South, the movement toward free common schools, sup-  For a general study of the development of public education prior to the Amendment, see Butts and Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture (1953), Pts. I, II\nCubberlcy, Public Education in the United States (1934 ed.), cc. II-XII. School practices current at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment are described in Butts and Cremin, supra, at 269-275\nCubberley, supra, at 288-339, 408-431\nKnight, Public Education in the South (1922), cc. VIII, IX. See also H. Ex. Doc. No. 315, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. (1871). Although the demand for free public schools followed substantially the same pattern in both the North and the South, the development in the South did not begin to gain momentum until about 1850, some twenty years after that in the North. The reasons for the somewhat slower development in the South (e. g., the rural character of the South and the different regional attitudes toward state assistance) are well explained in Cubberley, supra, at 408-423. In the country as a whole, but particularly in the South, the War 490 - OCTOBER TERM, 1953. Opinion of the Court. 347 U.S. ported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary\nungraded schools were common in rural areas\nthe school term was but three months a year in many states\nand compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.  In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided, shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro rac .5 The doctrine of virtually stopped all progress in public education. Id., at 427-428. The low status of Negro education in all sections of the country, both before and immediately after the War, is described in Beale, A History of Freedom of Teaching in American Schools ( 1941), 112- 132, 175-195. Compulsory school attendance laws were not generally adopted until after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was not until 1918 that such laws were in force in all the states. Cubberley, supra, at 563-565. 5 Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 67-72 (1873)\nStrauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 307-308 (1880): \"It ordains that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What is this but 483 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATIO- 491 Opinion of the Court. \"separate but equal\" did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. 9 American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the \"separate but equal\" doctrine in the field of public education.7 In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U. S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U. S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. 8 In more recent cases, all on the graduate school declaring that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white\nthat all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color? The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable to the colored race,-the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored,-exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race.\" See also Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318 (1880)\nEx parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 344-345 (1880). 9 The doctrine apparently originated in Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass. 198, 206 ( 1850), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a state constitutional guarantee of equality. Segregation in Boston public schools was eliminated in 1855. Mass. Acts 1855, c. 256. But elsewhere in the North segregation in public education has persisted in some communities until recent years. It is apparent that such segregation has Jong been a nationwide problem, not merely one of sectional concern. 7 See also Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908). 8 In the Cumming case, Negro taxpayers sought an injunction requiring the defendant school board to discontinue the operation of a high school for white children until the board resumed operation of a high school for Negro children. Similarly, in the Gong Lum case, the plaintiff, a child of Chinese descent, contended only that state authorities had misapplied the doctrine by classifying him with Negro children and requiring him to attend a Negro school. ' 492 OCTOBER TERM, 1953. Opinion of the Court. 347 U.S. level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337\nSipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631\nSweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629\nM cLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U. S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to re-examine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education. In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other \"tangible\" factors.9 Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education. In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout 9 In the Kansas case, the court below found substantial equality as to all such factors. 98 F. Supp. 797, 798. In the South Carolina case, the court below found that the defendants were proceeding \"promptly and in good faith to comply with the court's decree.\" 103 F. Supp. 920, 921. In the Virginia case, the court below noted that the equalization program was already \"afoot and progressing\" (103 F. Supp. 337, 341)\nsince then, we have been advised, in the Virginia Attorney General's brief on reargument, that the program has now been completed. In the Delaware case, the court below similarly noted that the state's equalization program was well under way. 91 A. 2d 137, 149. -I I 483 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATIO. 493 Opinion of the Court. the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws. Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other \"tangible\" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negtoes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on \"those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.\" In M cLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring tha,t a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to in tangible considerations: \". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.\" 494 e OCTOBER TERM, 1953. Opinion of the Court. 347 u. s. Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from othe:s of similar age and qualifications solely because. of ,their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their st~tus in the community that may affect their hearts and mm~s in a way unlikely ever to be undone. Th~ ~ff ect of this separation on their educational opportunities was \"'.ell stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:  \"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law\nfor the policy of separatin_g ~he races is usually interpreted as denoting the infenonty of the negro group. A sense of inferiorit~ affe~ts the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a_racial[ly] integrated school system.\" 10  Whatever may have been the extent of psy~hologi_cal knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this findmg is amply supported by modern authority.11 _ Any lan- 10 A similar finding was made in the Delaware case: \"I conclude fro'm the testimony that in our Delaware society, S~te-impos~d segregation in education itself results in the Negro children, ~s a class, receiving educational opportunities which are ~ubst_an~1ally inferior to those available to white children otherwise s1m1larly situated.\" 87 A. 2d 862, 865. 11 K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Per~onality Development (Midcentury White House Conferen~e on Child:en and Youth, 1950)\nWitmer and Kotinsky, Personality ~n the Makmg ( 1952), c. VI\nDeutscher and Chein, T~e Ps~cholog1c~l _Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of SoCJal Smence ~pm1on, 26 J. Psycho!. 259 (1948)\nChein, What are the Psychologwal Effects of . l BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATIO- 495 483 Opinion of the Court. guage in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of \"separate but equal\" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.12 Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary questionthe constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term.13 The Attorney General Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949)\nBrameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (Maciver, ed., 1949), 44-48\nFrazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944). 12 See Bolling v. Sharpe, post, p. 497, concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 13 \"4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment \" (a) ,would a decree necessarily follow providing that, within the 496 OCTOBER TERM, 1953. Opinion of the Court. 347 u. s. of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.14 It is so ordered. limits set by normal geographic school districting, Negro children should forthwith be admitted to schools of their choice, or \" ( b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be brought about from existing segregated systems to a system not based on color distinctions? \"5. On the assumption on which questions 4 (a) and (b) are based, and assuming further that this Court will exercise its equity powers to the end described in question 4 ( b), \"(a) should this Court formulate detailed decrees in these eases\n\" ( b) if so, what specific issues should the decrees reach\n\"(c) should this Court appoint a special master to hear evidence with a view to recommending specific terms for such decrees\n\"(d) should this Court remand to the courts of first instance with directions to frame decrees in these cases, and if so what general directions should the decrees of this Court include and what procedures should the courts of first instance follow in arriving at the specific terms of more detailed decrees?\" u See Rule 42, Revised Rules of this Court (effective July I, 1954). BOLLING v. SHARPE. Syllabus. BOLLING ET AL. v. SHARPE ET AL. 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 0. 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. .\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"loc_evenhand_br0082bs","title":"Felix Frankfurter to Earl Warren, May 17, 1954","collection_id":"loc_evenhand","collection_title":"With an Even Hand: Brown vs. Board at Fifty","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":["Frankfurter, Felix, 1882-1965"],"dc_date":["1954-05-17"],"dcterms_description":["A brief hand-written note dated May 17, 1954, from Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter to Chief Justice Earl Warren. In this letter Justice Frankfurter congratulates Chief Justice Warren on the decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and declares that he believes it to be a great day for both the Supreme Court and the United States.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the \"With an Even Hand\": Brown v. Board at Fifty Collection, Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, Washington, D.C."],"dcterms_subject":["Discrimination in education--Law and legislation--United States","Discrimination in education--United States","Segregation in education--Law and legislation--United States","Segregation in education--United States","African Americans--Civil rights--History--20th century","Topeka (Kan.). Board of Education--Trials, litigation, etc.","Civil rights--United States","United States. Supreme Court","Judges--United States","Brown, Oliver, 1918- --Trials, litigation, etc."],"dcterms_title":["Felix Frankfurter to Earl Warren, May 17, 1954"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0082bs.jpg"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:loc_evenhand_br0082bs"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Frankfurter, Felix, 1882-1965","Warren, Earl, 1891-1974","Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_evenhand_br0099s","title":"George E. C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James M. Nabrit congratulating each other","collection_id":"loc_evenhand","collection_title":"With an Even Hand: Brown vs. Board at Fifty","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1954-05-17"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph showing George E.C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James Nabrit celebrating the Supreme Court's decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, in which segregation in schools was ruled unconstitutional.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the \"With an Even Hand\": Brown v. Board at Fifty Collection, Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, Washington, D.C."],"dcterms_subject":["Discrimination in education--Law and legislation--United States","Segregation in education--United States","African Americans--Civil rights--History--20th century","Topeka (Kan.). Board of Education--Trials, litigation, etc.","Brown, Oliver, 1918- --Trials, litigation, etc."],"dcterms_title":["George E. C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James M. Nabrit congratulating each other"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0099s.jpg"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:loc_evenhand_br0099s"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Hayes, George E. C. (George Edward Chalmers), 1894-1968","Marshall, Thurgood, 1908-1993","Nabrit, James M. (James Madison), 1900-","Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_evenhand_br0082s","title":"Harold H. Burton to Earl Warren, May 17, 1954","collection_id":"loc_evenhand","collection_title":"With an Even Hand: Brown vs. Board at Fifty","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":["Burton, Harold H. (Harold Hitz), 1888-1964"],"dc_date":["1954-05-17"],"dcterms_description":["In this letter dated May 17, 1954, Supreme Court Justice Harold H. Burton expresses his support and admiration for Chief Justice Earl Warren and his decision in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case. Justice Burton also shares his joy in being a part of this case.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the \"With an Even Hand\": Brown v. Board at Fifty Collection, Library of Congress, Manuscripts Division, Washington, D.C."],"dcterms_subject":["Discrimination in education--Law and legislation--United States","Discrimination in education--United States","Segregation in education--United States","Segregation in education--Law and legislation--United States","African Americans--Civil rights--History--20th century","Topeka (Kan.). Board of Education--Trials, litigation, etc.","United States. Supreme Court","Judges--United States","Civil rights--United States","Brown, Oliver, 1918- --Trials, litigation, etc."],"dcterms_title":["Harold H. Burton to Earl Warren, May 17, 1954"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0082s.jpg"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:loc_evenhand_br0082s"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["letters (correspondence)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Burton, Harold H. (Harold Hitz), 1888-1964","Warren, Earl, 1891-1974","Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nara_supreme-court_1656510","title":"Opinion","collection_id":"nara_supreme-court","collection_title":"Records of the Supreme Court of the United States 1772 – 2007","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Kansas, Shawnee County, Topeka, 39.04833, -95.67804"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. Supreme Court"],"dc_date":["1954-05-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":["NAID: 1656510"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Records of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1772 – 2007, Series Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files, 1792 – 2020, Case File for Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al.,  National Archives at Washington, DC"],"dcterms_subject":["Segregation in education--United States","Discrimination in education--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Opinion","Opinion, Brown v. Board of Education"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["United States. National Archives and Records Administration"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1656510"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["judicial records","decisions (judicial records)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Brown, Oliver, 1918-1961--Trials, litigation, etc."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"[Top left corner of the page, handwritten]\r\n5 -File\r\n\r\n[Centered, bold text]\r\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES\r\n---------------\r\nnOS. 1, 2, 4 AND 10.-----OCTOBER TERM, 1953/\r\n----------------\r\n\r\n[Left side of page]\r\nOliver Brown, et al.,\r\nAppellants,\r\n1 v.\r\nBoard of Education of Topeka,\r\nShawnee County,\r\nKansas, et al.\r\n\r\nHarry Briggs, Jr., et al.,\r\nAppellants,\r\n2 v.\r\nR. W. Elliott, et al.\r\n\r\nDorothy E. Davis, et al.,\r\nAppellants,\r\n4 v.\r\nCounty School Board of\r\nPrince Edward County,\r\nVirginia, et al.\r\n\r\nFrancis B. Gebhart, et al.,\r\nPetitioners,\r\n10 v.\r\nEthel Louise Belton, et al.\r\n\r\n[Right half of the page]\r\nOn Appeal From the\r\nUnited States District\r\nCourt for the District of Kansas.\r\n\r\nOn Appeal From the\r\nUnited States District\r\nCourt for the Eastern\r\nDistrict of South Carolina.\r\n\r\nOn Appeal From the\r\nUnited States District\r\nCourt for the Eastern\r\nDistrict of Virginia\r\n\r\nOn Writ of Certiorari to\r\nthe Supreme Court of\r\nDelaware.\r\n\r\n[Centered]\r\n[May 17, 1954.]\r\n\r\nMR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.\r\nThese cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions,\r\n\r\nCentered, top of page]\r\n1, 2, 4 \u0026 10\r\n\r\n2 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION\r\n\r\nbut a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.--(1)\r\nIn each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in\r\n\r\n--------------------\r\n--(1)In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute which permits, but does not require, cities of more than 15,000 population to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students. Kam. Gen. Stat. 72-1724 (1949). Pursuant to that authority, the Topeka Board of Education elected to establish segregated elementary schools. Other public schools in the community, however, are operated on a non segregated basis. The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U. S. C. 2281 and 2284, found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon Negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the Negro and white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. 98 F. Supp, 797. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. 1253.\r\nIn the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in Clarendon County. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. 8. C. Const., Art. XI, 7; 8. C. Code 5377 (1942). The three-judge District Court, Convened under 28 U. S. C.. 2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The coiurt found that the Negro schools were inferior to the white schools and ordered the defendants to begin immediately to equalize the facilities,. But the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 98 F. Supp. 529. This Court vacated the District Court's judgement and remanded the case for the purpose of obtaining the court's views on a report filed b the defendants concerning the progress made in the equalization program. 342 U. S.. 350. On remand, the District Court found that substantial equality had been achieved except for buildings and that the defendants were proceeding to rectify this\r\n\r\n[Centered, top of page]\r\n1, 2, 4 \u0026 10\r\n\r\nBROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION 3\r\n\r\nobtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a non segregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segre-\r\n\r\n----------------------\r\ninequality as well. 103 F. Supp. 920. The case is again here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. 1253.\r\nIn the Virginia case, Davis v. County School Board, the plaintiffs are Negro children of high school age residing in Prince Edward County. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Va. Const., 140; Va. Code 22-221 (1950). The three- judge District Court, convened under 28 U. S. C. 2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The court found the Negro school inferior in physical plant, curricula, and transportation, and ordered the defendants forthwith to provide substantially equal curricula and transportation and to \"proceed with all reasonable diligence and dispatch to remove\" the inequality in physical plant. But, as in the South Carolina case, the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 103 F. Supp. 337. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. 1253.\r\nIn the Delaware case, Gebhart v. Belton, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing i New Castle County. They brought this action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Del. Const., Art. X, 2; De;l. Rev. Code 2631 (1935). The Chancellor gave judgement for the plaintiffs and ordered their immediate admission to schools previously attended only by white children, on the ground that the Negro schools were inferior with respect to teacher training, pupi;-teacher ratio, extra-curricular activities, physical plant, and time and distance involved in travel. 87 A. 2d 862. The Chancellor also found that segregation itself results in an inferior education for Negro children (see note 10, infra), but did not rest his decision on that ground. Id., at 865. The Chancellor's decree was affirmed by Supreme Court of Delaware, which intimated, however, that the defendants might be\r\n\r\nCentered, top of page]\r\n1. 2, 4 \u0026 10\r\n\r\n4 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.\r\n\r\ngation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called \"separate but equal\" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1631 U. S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.\r\nThe plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not \"equal\" and cannot be made \"equal,\" and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction.--(2) Argument was heard in the 1962 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.--(3)\r\nReargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1808. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This\r\n\r\n--------------------------\r\nable to obtain a modification of the decree after equalization of the Negro and white schools had been accomplished. 91 A. 2d 137, 152. The defendants, contending only that the Delaware courts had erred in ordering the immediate admission of the Negro plaintiffs to the white schools, applied to this Court for certiorari. The writ was granted, 344 U. nS. 891. The plaintiffs, who were successful below, did not submit a cross-petition.\r\n--(2)344 U. S. 1, 141, 891.\r\n--(3)345 U. S. 972. The Attorney General of the United States participated both Terms as amicus curiae.\r\n\r\n[Centered, top of page]\r\n1, 2, 4 \u0026 10\r\n\r\nBROWN v. BOATD OF EDUCATION. 5\r\n\r\ndiscussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problems with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most abid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among \"all persons born or naturalized in the United States.\" Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.\r\nAn additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment's history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public education at that time.\"--(4) In the\r\n\r\n-------------------------\r\n--(4)For a general study of the development of public education prior to the Amendment, See Butts and Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture (1953), Pts. I, II; Cubberley, Public Education in the United States (1934) ed.), cc. II-XII. School practices current at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment are described in Butts and Crimen, supra, at 269-275; Cubberley, supra, at 288-339, 408-431; Knight, Public Education in the South (1922), cc. VIII, IX. See also H. Ex. Doc. No. 315, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. (1871). Although the pattern in both the North and the South, the development in the South did not begin to gain momentum until about 1850, some twenty years after that in the North. The reasons for the somewhat slower development in the South 9e. g., the rural character of the South and the different regional attitudes toward state assistance) are well explained in Cubberley, supra, at 408-423. In the country as a whole, but particularly in the South, the War virtually stopped all progress in public education. Id., at 427-428. The low status of Negro education in all sections of the country, both before and immediately after the War, is described in Beale, A History of Freedom of Teaching in American Schools (1941), 112-132, 175-195. Compulsory school attendance laws were not generally adopted until after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was not until 1918 that such laws were in force in all the states. Cubberley, supra, at 563-565.\r\n\r\n[Centered, top of page]\r\n1, 2, 4 \u0026 10\r\n\r\n6 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.\r\n\r\nSouth, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes as almost non-existent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences ss well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public education had already advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. Thr curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states; and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.\r\nIn the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race.--(5) The doctrine of\r\n\r\n--------------------------------\r\n--(5)Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 67-72 (1873); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 307-308 (1879):\r\n\"It ordains that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What is this but declaring that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color? The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or\r\n\r\n[Centered, top of page]\r\n1, 2, 4 \u0026 10\r\n\r\nBROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION. 7\r\n\r\n\"separate but equal\" did not make its appearance in this Court until 1806 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation.\"--(6) American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been dix cases involving the \"separate but equal\" doctrine in the field of public education.--(7) In Cumming v, County Board of Education, 175 U. S.. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U. S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged.--(8) In more recent cases, all on the graduate school level, inequality was found in that spcific benefits enjoyed by ehite studengts were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 395 U. S. 337; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629; McLaurin v.\r\n\r\n----------------------\r\nright, most valuable to the colored race,--the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored--exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race.\"\r\nSee also Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318 (1879); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 344-345 (1879).\r\n--(6)The doctrine apparently originated in Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass. 198, 206 (1849), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a state constitutional guarantee of equality. Segregation in Boston public schools was eliminated in 1855. Mass. Acts 1855, c. 256. But elsewhere in the North segregation in public education has persisted until recent years. It is apparent that such segregation has long been a nationwide problem, not merely one of sectional concern.\r\n--(7)See also Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45 (1908).\r\n--(8)In the Cumming case, Negro taxpayers sought an injunction requiring the defendant school board to discontinue the operation of a high school for Negro children until the board resumed operation of a high school for Negro children. Similarly, in the Gong Lum case, the plaintiff, a child of Chinese descent, contended only that state authorities mhad misapplied the doctrine by classifying him with Negro children and requiring him to attend a Negro school.\r\n\r\n[Centered, top of page]\r\n1, 2, 4 \u0026 10\r\n\r\n8 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.\r\n\r\nOklahoma State Regents, 339 U. S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to reexamine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.\r\nIn the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other \"tangible\" factors.--(9) Our decision,therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.\r\nIn approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.\r\nToday, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school\r\n\r\n--------------------------\r\n--(9)In the Kansas case, the court below found substantial equality as to all such factors. 98 F. Supp. 797, 798. In the South Carolina case, the court below found that the defendants were proceeding \"promptly and in good faith to comply with the court's decree.\" 103 F. Supp. 920. 921. In the Virginia case, the court below noted that the equalization program was already \"afoot and progressing\" (103 F. Supp. 337, 341); since then, we have been advised, in the Virginia Attorney General's brief on reargument, that the program has now been completed. In the Delaware case, the court below similarly noted that the state's equalization program was well under way. 91 A. 2d 137, 149.\r\n\r\n[Centered, top of page]\r\n1, 2, 4 \u0026 10\r\n\r\nBROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION. 9\r\n\r\nattendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.\r\nWe come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other \"tangible\" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the Minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.\r\nIn Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on \"those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.\" In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: \". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.\" Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status i the community that may affect their hearts and minds\r\n\r\n[Centered to of page]\r\n1, 2, 4 \u0026 10\r\n\r\n10 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.\r\n\r\nin a way unlikely ever to be un done. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:\r\n\"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.\"--(10)\r\n\r\nWhatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority.--(11) Any lan-\r\n\r\n\r\n------------------------\r\n--(10)A similar finding was made in the Delaware case: \"I conclude from the testimony that in our Delaware society, State-imposed segregation in education itself results in the Negro children, as a class, receiving educational opportunities which are substantially inferior to those available to white children otherwise similarly situated.\" 87 A. 2d 862, 865.\r\n--(11)K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Mid century White House Conference on Children and Youth, 21950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the psychological Effects of Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (McIver, ed., 1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).\r\n\r\n[Centered top of page]\r\n\r\nBROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION 11\r\n\r\nguage in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.\r\nWe conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of \"separate but equal\" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by he Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.--(12)\r\nBecause these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question--the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term.--(13) The Attorney General\r\n\r\n----------------------\r\n--)12)See Bolling v. Sharpe, infra, concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.\r\n--(13)\"4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment\r\n\"(a) would a decree necessarily follow providing that, within the limits set by normal geographic schools districting, Negro children should forthwith be admitted to schools of their choice, or\r\n\"(b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be brought about from existing segregated systems to a system not based on color distinctions?\r\n\"5. On the assumption on which questions 4 (a) and (b) are\r\n\r\n[Centered, top of page]\r\n1, 2, 4 \u0026 10\r\n\r\n12 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.\r\n\r\nof the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitted segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.--(14)\r\n\r\n[Far right margin]\r\nIt is so ordered.\r\n\r\n\r\n----------------------------\r\nbased, and assuming further that this Court will exercise its equity powers to the end described in question 4 (b),\r\n\"(a) should this Court formulate detailed decrees in these cases;\r\n\"(b) if so, what specific issues should the decrees reach;\r\n\"(c) should this Court appoint a special master to hear evidence with a view to recommending specific terms for such decrees;\r\n:(d) should this Court remand to the courts of first instance worth directions to frame decrees in these cases, and if so, what general directions should the decrees of this Court include and what procedures should the courts of first instance follow in arriving at the specific terms of more detailed decrees?\"\r\n--(14)See Rule 42, Revised Rules of this Court (effective July 1, 1954).\r\n\r\n"}],"pages":{"current_page":5566,"next_page":5567,"prev_page":5565,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":66780,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}