Other Free Encyclopedias :: Law Library - American Law and Legal Information :: Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1954 to 1962
 

Boynton v. Virginia - Significance, Court Splits, But For Boynton

Petitioner

Bruce Boynton

Respondent

Commonwealth of Virginia

Petitioner's Claim

That his arrest for refusing to leave a whites only section in a bus station restaurant violated the Interstate Commerce Act, and the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Chief Lawyer for Petitioner

Thurgood Marshall

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Walter E. Rogers

Justices for the Court

Hugo Lafayette Black (writing for the Court), William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, John Marshall Harlan II, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren

Justices Dissenting

Tom C. Clark, Charles Evans Whittaker

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

5 December 1960

Decision

Boynton's conviction was unconstitutional.

Related Cases

  • Curtis v. Roxxo & Mastracco, Inc., 413 F.Supp. 804 (1976).

Further Readings

  • The Negro History Bulletin. Vol. 26, no. 15, 1972.
  • Wasby, Stephen L., Anthony A. D'Amato, and Rosemary Metrailer. Desegregation from Brown to Alexander. Carbondale, IL.: South Illinois University Press, 1977.
  • Witt, Elder. Guide to the Supreme Court. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1990, p. 605.

Additional Topics

Boynton v. Virginia - Significance

In the often acrimonious battle between the federal government and individual states over racial segregation, Bruce Boynton's suit marked a major breakthrough. For the first time, the federal government sent a clear message that interstate facilities were for the use of all citizens, irrespective of color. In 1958, Bruce Boynton, a black student at Howard University Law School in Washington, D.C.,…

Boynton v. Virginia - Court Splits, But For Boynton

On 5 December 1960, the Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Boynton, the first time since 1946 it had divided on a matter of racial segregation. A strong factor in the Court's decision had been the earlier testimony of the restaurant manager who conceded that, although the restaurant received "quite a bit of business" from local people, it was primarily for the service of Trailways passengers. D…

Monroe v. Pape - Significance, A Turbulent Time, An Energetic Mistake, Equal Protection And The States, Impact [next] [back] Williamson v. Lee Optical - Significance, A Vision Problem In Oklahoma, Substantive Due Process: From Slaughterhouse To Optician's Shop

User Comments Add a comment…