Sweatt v. Painter
Significance, Court Finds That "separate" Facilities Cannot Be "equal"
Heman Marion Sweatt
Theophilis Shickel Painter
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)
Date of Decision
5 June 1950
The Supreme Court ordered the university to admit Sweatt.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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