Bolling v. Sharpe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bolling v. Sharpe

Supreme Court of the United States

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


Full case name:	Spottswood Thomas Bolling, et al.,Petitioners, v. C. Melvin Sharpe, et al.

Citations:	347 U.S. 497; 74 S. Ct. 693; 98 L. Ed. 884; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2095; 53 Ohio Op. 331

Prior history:	Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Holding

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.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Associate Justices: Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Robert H. Jackson, Harold Hitz Burton, Tom C. Clark, Sherman Minton

Case opinions

Majority by: Warren
Joined by: unanimous

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. V

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) was an influential United States Supreme Court landmark case dealing with civil rights concerning segregation in public schools. It is considered a 'companion' case to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

1 Background
2 The decision
3 Controversy
4 External links

[edit] Background

Beginning in late 1949, a group of parents from the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, DC acting under the name the Consolidated Parents Group petitioned the Board of Education of the District of Columbia to open the nearly completed John Phillip Sousa Junior High as an integrated school. The school board denied the petition and the school opened, admitting only whites. On September 11, 1950, Gardner Bishop and the Consolidated Parents Group attempted to get eleven African-American students (including the case's plaintiff, Spottswood Bolling) admitted to the school, but were refused entry by the school's principal.

James Nabrit, a professor of law at the historically black Howard University filed suit on behalf of Bolling and the other students in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking assistance in the students' admission. When the court dismissed the claim, the case was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court. It's worth noting that while Nabrit's argument in Bolling rested on the unconstitutionality of segregation, the much more famous Brown v. Board of Education (decided on the same day) argued that the idea of 'separate but equal' facilities mandated by Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) was a fallacy as the facilities for black students were woefully inadequate. Though the schools attended by the plaintiffs of Bolling were certainly in exceedingly poor shape, that issue was not addressed. The lead attorney for Bolling was George Edward Chalmer Hayes‎.

[edit] The decision

The court, led by newly confirmed Chief Justice Earl Warren decided unanimously in favor of the plaintiffs. In his opinion, Warren noted that while the Fourteenth Amendment, whose Equal Protection Clause was cited in Brown in order to declare segregation unconstitutional did not apply in the District of Columbia, the Fifth Amendment did apply. While the Fifth Amendment which was applicable in D.C. lacked an equal protection clause, Warren held that '. . . the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive'. While equal protection is a more explicit safeguard against discrimination, the Court recognized that '. . .discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process'. Referring to the technicalities raised by the case's location in the District of Columbia, the Court held that, in light of their decision in Brown that segregation in state public schools is prohibited by the constitution, it would be '. . . unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government'.

Finally holding that '. . .racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution . . ." the Court restored both Bolling and Brown to the docket until they could reconvene to discuss how to effectively implement the decisions.

[edit] Controversy

The Court's decision in this case has come under heavy criticism for applying the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution so as to restrain Congress, when the text of the Clause indicates that it was intended merely to restrain the states. Some scholars have argued that the Court's decision in Bolling should have been reached on other grounds. For example, Judge Michael McConnell of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at one time wrote[1] that Congress never "required that the schools of the District of Columbia be segregated." According to that rationale, the segregation of schools in Washington D.C. was unauthorized and therefore illegal.