Petitioners
Bolling and other African American children residents in the District of Columbia
Respondents
The District of Columbia public school system
Petitioners' Claim
Because racial segregation in the public schools is unconstitutional, they should be allowed to attend white schools that had rejected them.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioners
George E. C. Hayes, James M. Nabrit, George M. Johnson, Herbert O. Reid, Charles W. Quick
Chief Lawyers for Respondents
Milton D. Korman, Vernon E. West, Chester H. Gray, Lyman J. Umstead
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, FelixFrankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Sherman Minton, Stanley Forman Reed, Earl Warren (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
17 May 1954
Decision
Racial segregation among District of Columbia school children was not legal under the Constitution.
Significance
The Court incorporated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (which applied only to the states) into the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause(which applied to the federal government).
Bolling v. Sharpe was one of several racial segregation cases decidedin May of 1954. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had brought five cases on appeal to the Supreme Court, all challenging the assignment of black and white children to separate public schools. The more famous decision, Brown v. Board of Education, consolidated fourcases from Delaware, Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia. Bolling v. Sharpe concerned the District of Columbia.
Separate Can Never Be Equal
In Brown, the Court ruled that segregation in the public schools deprived black children of "equal protection of the law." It thus violated one ofthe guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment: "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Some 60 years earlier in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court allowed states to provide "separate but equal" facilities for different races. Reversing Plessy, the Court declared in Brown that segregation was inherently unequal.
Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren maintained that even if the "physical facilities and other `tangible' factors are equal," segregation is psychologically harmful. It generates in black children a "feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."
In Bolling v. Sharpe, issued the same day as the Brown decision, the Court applied the same reasoning to schools in the District of Columbia. Chief Justice Warren, again writing for the unanimous court, was determinedto end segregation in the District of Columbia. "In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregatedpublic schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government."
"Due Process" Requires "Equal Protection"
Chief Justice Warren was well aware of the legal difficulties in extending the principles of the Brown decision to the District of Columbia. The Fourteenth Amendment, with its Equal Protection Clause, had been adopted in 1868 to protect individuals--particularly the former slaves--against injustice at the state and local level. It was never intended to affect the federal government, which has authority over the District of Columbia.
To resolve this difficulty, Chief Justice Warren incorporated the FourteenthAmendment's Equal Protection Clause into the Fifth Amendment, which does apply to the federal government. Under the Fifth Amendment, no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The phrase due process, Warren argued, must include "equal protection of the laws."
The Fifth Amendment was adopted 80 years before the Fourteenth Amendment. Thetwo amendments had entirely different legislative histories, and the courtshad given differing interpretations to "due process" and "equal protection."As Chief Justice Warren recognized, the two phrases are "not always interchangeable." Nevertheless, Warren maintained that in some sense, due process implies equality. The two concepts "both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive."
Whatever the term means, the Fifth Amendment required due process only when the federal government was acting to take away life, liberty, or property. Warren did not claim that segregation deprived black school children of life orproperty. However, he declared that segregation did take away their "liberty"if that word was defined in the broadest sense possible.
The Chief Justice declared that "Liberty under law extends to the full rangeof conduct which the individual is free to pursue." Any legal conduct, such as going to school, is part of this constitutionally protected liberty. Thus the government cannot restrict going to school--or any other personal conduct--without a "proper" objective.
In Bolling v. Sharpe, the Supreme Court practiced a form of reverse incorporation. For some years, the Court had argued that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. In Bolling, it ruled that the Billof Rights incorporated part of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent decisions have recognized that due process and equal protection are not always coextensive. Overall, however, the Court has continued to hold that federal as wellas state laws must be in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Related Cases
Bolling and other African American children residents in the District of Columbia
Respondents
The District of Columbia public school system
Petitioners' Claim
Because racial segregation in the public schools is unconstitutional, they should be allowed to attend white schools that had rejected them.
Chief Lawyers for Petitioners
George E. C. Hayes, James M. Nabrit, George M. Johnson, Herbert O. Reid, Charles W. Quick
Chief Lawyers for Respondents
Milton D. Korman, Vernon E. West, Chester H. Gray, Lyman J. Umstead
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, FelixFrankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Sherman Minton, Stanley Forman Reed, Earl Warren (writing for the Court)
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
17 May 1954
Decision
Racial segregation among District of Columbia school children was not legal under the Constitution.
Significance
The Court incorporated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (which applied only to the states) into the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause(which applied to the federal government).
Bolling v. Sharpe was one of several racial segregation cases decidedin May of 1954. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had brought five cases on appeal to the Supreme Court, all challenging the assignment of black and white children to separate public schools. The more famous decision, Brown v. Board of Education, consolidated fourcases from Delaware, Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia. Bolling v. Sharpe concerned the District of Columbia.
Separate Can Never Be Equal
In Brown, the Court ruled that segregation in the public schools deprived black children of "equal protection of the law." It thus violated one ofthe guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment: "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Some 60 years earlier in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court allowed states to provide "separate but equal" facilities for different races. Reversing Plessy, the Court declared in Brown that segregation was inherently unequal.
Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren maintained that even if the "physical facilities and other `tangible' factors are equal," segregation is psychologically harmful. It generates in black children a "feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."
In Bolling v. Sharpe, issued the same day as the Brown decision, the Court applied the same reasoning to schools in the District of Columbia. Chief Justice Warren, again writing for the unanimous court, was determinedto end segregation in the District of Columbia. "In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregatedpublic schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government."
"Due Process" Requires "Equal Protection"
Chief Justice Warren was well aware of the legal difficulties in extending the principles of the Brown decision to the District of Columbia. The Fourteenth Amendment, with its Equal Protection Clause, had been adopted in 1868 to protect individuals--particularly the former slaves--against injustice at the state and local level. It was never intended to affect the federal government, which has authority over the District of Columbia.
To resolve this difficulty, Chief Justice Warren incorporated the FourteenthAmendment's Equal Protection Clause into the Fifth Amendment, which does apply to the federal government. Under the Fifth Amendment, no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The phrase due process, Warren argued, must include "equal protection of the laws."
The Fifth Amendment was adopted 80 years before the Fourteenth Amendment. Thetwo amendments had entirely different legislative histories, and the courtshad given differing interpretations to "due process" and "equal protection."As Chief Justice Warren recognized, the two phrases are "not always interchangeable." Nevertheless, Warren maintained that in some sense, due process implies equality. The two concepts "both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive."
Whatever the term means, the Fifth Amendment required due process only when the federal government was acting to take away life, liberty, or property. Warren did not claim that segregation deprived black school children of life orproperty. However, he declared that segregation did take away their "liberty"if that word was defined in the broadest sense possible.
The Chief Justice declared that "Liberty under law extends to the full rangeof conduct which the individual is free to pursue." Any legal conduct, such as going to school, is part of this constitutionally protected liberty. Thus the government cannot restrict going to school--or any other personal conduct--without a "proper" objective.
Segregation in public education isnot reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutesan arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause.
In Bolling v. Sharpe, the Supreme Court practiced a form of reverse incorporation. For some years, the Court had argued that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights. In Bolling, it ruled that the Billof Rights incorporated part of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent decisions have recognized that due process and equal protection are not always coextensive. Overall, however, the Court has continued to hold that federal as wellas state laws must be in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Related Cases
- Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
- Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
User Comments Add a comment…