Bolling v. Sharpe
Case Overview
CITATION
ARGUED ON
REARGUED ON
DECIDED ON
DECIDED BY
347 U.S. 497 (1954)
December 10-11, 1952
December 8-9, 1953
May 17, 1954
Legal Issue
Does segregation of children in public schools in Washington, D.C. solely on the basis of race violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Holding
Yes, segregation of public schools in Washington, D.C. violated the guarantee of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Students and residents of Washington, D.C. celebrating the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bolling v. Sharpe | Credit: flickr
Background
Led by Gardner Bishop and the Consolidated Parents Group, a group of Black parents from the Anacostia neighborhood sought to integrate the newly built John Philip Sousa Junior High School in Washington, D.C. Despite repeated attempts, 11 Black students, including Spottswood Bolling, were denied entry solely because of their race. In 1951, James Nabrit Jr., a professor at Howard University School of Law, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the students, arguing that racial segregation in D.C. schools violated their Fifth Amendment rights, which apply to federal jurisdictions like the District of Columbia. Since the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, used in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), did not apply to the federal government, the plaintiffs had to rely on the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the case, but it was taken to the Supreme Court, where it was granted certiorari. The ruling was ultimately handed down on the same day as Brown v. Board of Education and contributed to the end of segregation in public schools across the nation, establishing that the federal government also had a duty to ensure racial equality in education.
Summary
Unanimous decision for Bolling
Bolling
Sharpe
Warren
Black
Douglas
Reed
Clark
Minton
Jackson
Burton
Frankfurter
Opinion of the Court
Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren held that the segregation of public schools in Washington, D.C. violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Warren explained that while the Fifth Amendment does not contain an Equal Protection Clause like the Fourteenth Amendment, “the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive.” Furthermore, he wrote that “[t]he ‘equal protection of the laws’ is a more explicit safeguard of prohibited unfairness than ‘due process of law,’ and, therefore, we do not imply that the two are always interchangeable phrases. But, as this Court has recognized, discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.”
On the idea of “liberty” under the Fifth Amendment, Warren explained that it “extends to the full range of conduct which the individual is free to pursue, and it cannot be restricted except for a proper governmental objective.” He noted that classifications based only on race “must be scrutinized with particular care, since they are contrary to our traditions and hence constitutionally suspect.” Under this reasoning, Warren examined the discrimination taking place in Washington, D.C.’s public schools. Ultimately, Warren found that segregation in public schools in not reasonably related to any proper government interest and therefore results in the “arbitrary deprivation” of liberty of minority children.