Appellant
Lloyd L. Gaines
Appellee
S. W. Canada, Registrar of the University of Missouri
Appellant's Claim
That rejection of an African American applicant by the all-white University of Missouri Law School violates equal protection under the law as mandated bythe Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Charles F. Houston and S. R. Redmond
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
William S. Hogsett and Fred L. Williams
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Louis D. Brandeis, Charles Evans Hughes (writing for the Court), Stanley Forman Reed, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone
Justices Dissenting
Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds (Benjamin N. Cardozo did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
12 December 1938
Decision
The Supreme Court ordered the university to admit Gaines.
Significance
Gaines marked a turning point in the reevaluation of the "separate butequal" standard that had been the law of the land since the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896.
Lloyd Gaines was an African American resident of Missouri who sought admission to the all-white state university law school. In his quest, Gaines was assisted by the state of Missouri ("ex rel." indicates a case brought by the state on behalf of an individual) and by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which looked on his as a test case. The goalof the NAACP was to overturn the "separate but equal" standard for determining what types of segregation were legal.
Gaines had applied to the University of Missouri Law School because there wasno law school for blacks in the state. When in due course his application was rejected, Gaines appealed to the state courts for an order compelling the university to admit him. Because the university said it had plans to create anin-state law school for blacks and offered to pay Gaines's tuition at another law school in the meantime, the Missouri courts upheld the decision not toaccept Gaines. Gaines's attorney, Charles H. Houston, who played an importantrole in the NAACP's campaign to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Supreme Court Redefines "Separate But Equal"
The NAACP had concentrated its efforts in the field of public education. In 1938, although the Court was still unwilling to overturn "separate but equal,"it began to regard with skepticism state claims that all-black state sponsored institutions of higher learning were equivalent to their all-white counterparts. In Gaines's case, the proposal to establish an in-state law school forblack students was just that--a proposal. Furthermore, the option of payingfor Gaines to attend an out-of-state law school offended the principle of equal protection. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in the opinion of the Court:
The Supreme Court was not yet ready to throw out "separate but equal," but with Gaines the Court began to concede the difficulty--indeed, the nearimpossibility--of a state maintaining segregated black and white institutionswhich would be truly equal. In a similar subsequent case, Sweatt v. Painter (1950), the Court concluded that an all-black law school could not bethe equivalent of an all-white law school precisely because the former excluded those with whom the black graduates would have to contend throughout theirprofessional lives. And in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for HigherEducation (1950), the Court ruled against a scheme for educating black and white graduate students in separate classrooms at the same institution. Itwas but a brief step to the watershed Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson once and for all.
The NAACP won Lloyd Gaines's case almost in spite of him. In August of 1937,he informed Houston that while he waited for the University of Missouri Law School to accept him, he intended to work towards an M.A. in economics at theUniversity of Michigan. This was a major blow for the NAACP, as Gaines was proposing to use Missouri's money to fund an out-of-state education--a move that would completely undermine the NAACP's equal protection argument. Houston scrambled to help Gaines find alternative sources of financing. In October of1939, after the Supreme Court had ruled in his favor and ordered the MissouriSupreme Court to reconsider his case under new guidelines, Gaines simply disappeared. When the University of Missouri subsequently moved the state supreme court for dismissal of the case, the NAACP did not oppose the motion.
Related Cases
Lloyd L. Gaines
Appellee
S. W. Canada, Registrar of the University of Missouri
Appellant's Claim
That rejection of an African American applicant by the all-white University of Missouri Law School violates equal protection under the law as mandated bythe Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Charles F. Houston and S. R. Redmond
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
William S. Hogsett and Fred L. Williams
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Louis D. Brandeis, Charles Evans Hughes (writing for the Court), Stanley Forman Reed, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone
Justices Dissenting
Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds (Benjamin N. Cardozo did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
12 December 1938
Decision
The Supreme Court ordered the university to admit Gaines.
Significance
Gaines marked a turning point in the reevaluation of the "separate butequal" standard that had been the law of the land since the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896.
Lloyd Gaines was an African American resident of Missouri who sought admission to the all-white state university law school. In his quest, Gaines was assisted by the state of Missouri ("ex rel." indicates a case brought by the state on behalf of an individual) and by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which looked on his as a test case. The goalof the NAACP was to overturn the "separate but equal" standard for determining what types of segregation were legal.
Gaines had applied to the University of Missouri Law School because there wasno law school for blacks in the state. When in due course his application was rejected, Gaines appealed to the state courts for an order compelling the university to admit him. Because the university said it had plans to create anin-state law school for blacks and offered to pay Gaines's tuition at another law school in the meantime, the Missouri courts upheld the decision not toaccept Gaines. Gaines's attorney, Charles H. Houston, who played an importantrole in the NAACP's campaign to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Supreme Court Redefines "Separate But Equal"
The NAACP had concentrated its efforts in the field of public education. In 1938, although the Court was still unwilling to overturn "separate but equal,"it began to regard with skepticism state claims that all-black state sponsored institutions of higher learning were equivalent to their all-white counterparts. In Gaines's case, the proposal to establish an in-state law school forblack students was just that--a proposal. Furthermore, the option of payingfor Gaines to attend an out-of-state law school offended the principle of equal protection. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in the opinion of the Court:
[T]he obligation of the State to give the protection of equal laws can be performed only where its laws operate . . . it is there that the equality of legal right must be maintained. That obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the States severally as governmental entities . . . It is an obligation the burden of which cannot be cast by one State upon another, and no State can be excused from performance by what another State may do or fail todo.
The Supreme Court was not yet ready to throw out "separate but equal," but with Gaines the Court began to concede the difficulty--indeed, the nearimpossibility--of a state maintaining segregated black and white institutionswhich would be truly equal. In a similar subsequent case, Sweatt v. Painter (1950), the Court concluded that an all-black law school could not bethe equivalent of an all-white law school precisely because the former excluded those with whom the black graduates would have to contend throughout theirprofessional lives. And in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for HigherEducation (1950), the Court ruled against a scheme for educating black and white graduate students in separate classrooms at the same institution. Itwas but a brief step to the watershed Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson once and for all.
The NAACP won Lloyd Gaines's case almost in spite of him. In August of 1937,he informed Houston that while he waited for the University of Missouri Law School to accept him, he intended to work towards an M.A. in economics at theUniversity of Michigan. This was a major blow for the NAACP, as Gaines was proposing to use Missouri's money to fund an out-of-state education--a move that would completely undermine the NAACP's equal protection argument. Houston scrambled to help Gaines find alternative sources of financing. In October of1939, after the Supreme Court had ruled in his favor and ordered the MissouriSupreme Court to reconsider his case under new guidelines, Gaines simply disappeared. When the University of Missouri subsequently moved the state supreme court for dismissal of the case, the NAACP did not oppose the motion.
Related Cases
- Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
- McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S.637 (1950).
- Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950).
- Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Further Readings
- Armor, David J. Forced Justice: School Desegregation and the Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995.
- Greenberg, Jack. Crusaders in the Courts: How a Dedicated Band of Lawyers Fought for the Civil Rights Revolution. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1994.
- Wolters, Raymond. The Burden of Brown: Thirty Years of School Desegregation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984.
User Comments Add a comment…