Sweatt v. Painter
Significance, Court Finds That "separate" Facilities Cannot Be "equal"
Appellant
Heman Marion Sweatt
Appellee
Theophilis Shickel Painter
Appellant's Claim
That the refusal of the University of Texas to admit him to its law school violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the laws.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
W. J. Durham and Thurgood Marshall
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Price Daniel and Joe R. Greenhill
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Sherman Minton, Stanley Forman Reed, Fred Moore Vinson (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
5 June 1950
Decision
The Supreme Court ordered the university to admit Sweatt.
Related Cases
- Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
- Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).
- McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for a Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Further Readings
- Davis, Abraham L. The Supreme Court, Race, and Civil Rights Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995.
- Desegregation of Public Education. New York, NY: Garland, 1991.
- Greenberg, Jack. Crusaders in the Courts: How a Dedicated Band of Lawyers Fought for the Civil Rights Revolution. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
Additional topics
- Terminiello v. Chicago - Significance, Impact
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona - The Arizona Train Limit Law, Appeal To The U.s. Supreme Court, The Commerce Clause
- Sweatt v. Painter - Significance
- Sweatt v. Painter - Court Finds That "separate" Facilities Cannot Be "equal"
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1941 to 1953