Bolling v. Sharpe
Significance, Separate Can Never Be Equal, "due Process" Requires "equal Protection", Further Readings
Bolling and other African American children residents in the District of Columbia
The District of Columbia public school system
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, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Sherman Minton, Stanley Forman Reed, Earl Warren (writing for the Court)
Date of Decision
17 May 1954
Racial segregation among District of Columbia school children was not legal under the Constitution.
- Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
- Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
- Boynton v. Virginia - Significance, Court Splits, But For Boynton
- Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines - Significance, When May A State Regulate Interstate Commerce?, Illinois' Peculiar Mudguards, Small Benefits Do Not Justify Great Costs
- Bolling v. Sharpe - Further Readings
- Bolling v. Sharpe - Significance
- Bolling v. Sharpe - Separate Can Never Be Equal
- Bolling v. Sharpe - "due Process" Requires "equal Protection"
- Other Free Encyclopedias