Boynton v. Virginia

Petitioner
Bruce Boynton
Respondent
Commonwealth of Virginia
Petitioner's Claim
That his arrest for refusing to leave a whites only section in a bus stationrestaurant 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.
Significance
In the often acrimonious battle between the federal government and individualstates 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., took a Trailways bus from Washington to his home in Montgomery, Alabama. On a 40-minute layover at the Trailways Bus Terminal in Richmond,Virginia, the passengers went inside to eat. Boynton entered the segregatedrestaurant, sat in the white section and ordered a sandwich and tea. When asked to move to the colored section, he refused, saying that as an interstate passenger he was protected by federal antisegregation laws. Declining to leave, he was arrested by local police, charged with trespass, and fined $10.
The Commonwealth of Virginia conceded that the conviction could not stand ifanything in federal law or the Constitution gave Boynton a right to service in the restaurant. But it found no such right. Lawyers for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) petitioned the Supreme Court on grounds that Boynton was entitled to such protection under the Constitution.
Pleading that case before the Supreme Court on 12 October 1960 was Thurgood Marshall, who later became the first African American Supreme Court justice. He maintained that Boynton's arrest placed an unreasonable burden on commerceand denied him the equal protection of the law, both points having far-reaching implications. However, the Supreme Court chose not to address this petition from a constitutional standpoint after the Justice Department, interveningas a friend of the court, raised the issue of the Interstate Commerce Act, which expressly forbade "unjust discrimination."
For the act to apply, the relationship between restaurant and terminal had tobe clarified. When Trailways built the terminal in 1953, it contracted withBus Terminal Restaurant of Richmond, Inc., for the latter to provide dining facilities for passengers on Trailways buses. The only interest that Trailwayshad in the restaurant came in the form of the annual rental, $30,000, plus apercentage of the gross profits. So the question became whether the restaurant was subject to the same federal provisions as Trailways.
Not so, argued Walter E. Rogers, attorney for Virginia. He contended that therestaurant, as private property, fell outside the scope of the Interstate Commerce Act. Boynton, he said, had been justly convicted.
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 bitof business" from local people, it was primarily for the service of Trailways passengers. Describing this as "much of an understatement," Justice Black,in writing the majority verdict, added:

Interstate passengers have to eat, and they have a right to expect that this essential transportationfood service . . . would be rendered without discrimination prohibited by theInterstate Commerce Act. We are not holding that every time a bus stops at awholly independent roadside restaurant the act applies . . . [but] where circumstances show that the terminal and restaurant operate as an integral partof the bus carrier's transportation service . . . an interstate passenger need not inquire into documents of title or contractual agreements in order to determine whether he has a right to be served without discrimination.

Anticipating the Supreme Court's decision, Bus Terminal Restaurants, Inc., of Raleigh, North Carolina, announced that, as of August of 1960, none of its establishments would be racially segregated.
The impact of this case was immense. For the first time, a bridge was built between the federal government and the civil rights movement. While many obstacles remained to be conquered in the fight for racial equality, henceforth itwould be a struggle fought together.
Related Cases

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