《brown v. board of education of topeka 347 u.s. 483 (1954).doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《brown v. board of education of topeka 347 u.s. 483 (1954).doc（8页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、U.S. Supreme CourtBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)Brown v. Board of Education of TopekaArgued December 9, 1952Reargued December 8, 1953Decided May 17, 1954*APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSASSyllabusSegregation of white and Negro children
2、in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment - even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors of white an
3、d Negro schools may be equal. (a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education. Pp. 347 U. S. 489-490.(b) The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopte
4、d, but in the light of the full development of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Pp. 347 U. S. 492-493.(c) Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made ava
5、ilable to all on equal terms. P. 347 U. S. 493.(d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal. Pp. 347 U. S. 493-494.(e)
6、The separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, has no place in the field of public education. P. 347 U. S. 495. (f) The cases are restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the forms of the decrees. Pp. 347 U. S. 495-496. MR. CHIEF J
7、USTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opin
8、ion. Footnote 1 In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they had been denied admission to schools attended by white chil
9、dren under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to t
10、he plaintiffs on the so-called separate but equal doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Fergson, 163 U. S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, t
11、he Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not equal and cannot be made equal, and that hence they are deprived of
12、the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. Footnote 2 Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court. Footnote 3 Reargument was largely devoted to th
13、e circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then-existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and
14、 our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among all p
15、ersons born or naturalized in the United States. Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any deg
16、ree of certainty.An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendments history with respect to segregated schools is the status of public education at that time. Footnote 4 In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, a
