41

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka -- Opinion -- 387 U.S. 483 Page 1 of 7

[handwritten] speech
------------------------------
Page 483
BROWN ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL.

No. 1. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. ^[*]

Argued December 8, 1952. -- Reargued December 8, 1953. --
Decided May 17, 1954.

Syllabus.

Segregation of white and Negro children 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 and Negro schools may be equal. Pp. 486-496.

(a) The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education. Pp. 489-490.

(b) The question presented in these cases must be determined, not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the full development of public education and its presentplace in American life throughout the Nation. Pp. 493-493.

(c) Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right white must be made available to all on equal terms. P. 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 "tangibel" factors may be equal. Pp. 493-494.

(e) The "separate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Gerguson, 163 U.S. 537, has no place in the field of public education. P. 495.
_____________________
Page 484

(f) The cases are restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the forms of the decrees. Pp. 495-496.

Counsel for Parties

Robert L. Carter argued the cause for appellants in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for appellants in No. 2 on the original argument and Spottswood W. Robinson, III, for appellants in No. 4 on the original argument, and both argued the causes for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. Louis L. Redding and Jack Greenberg argued the cause for respondents in No. 10 on the original argument and Jack Greenburg and Thurgood Marshall on the reargument.

On the briefs were Robert L. Carter, thurgood Marshall, Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Louis L. Redding, Jack Greenbuerg, George E. C. Hayes, William R. Ming, Jr., Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, Jr., Charles S. Scott, Frank D. Reeves, Harold R. Boulware and Oliver W. Hill for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents in No. 10; George M. Johnson for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4; and Loren Miller for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4. Arthur D. Shores and A. T. Walden were on the Statement as to Jurisdiction and a brief opposing a Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in No. 2.

Paul E. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General of Kansas, argued the cause for appellees in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briegs was Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney General.

John W. Davis argued the cause for appellees in No. 2 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the

http://brownvboard.org/research/opinions/347us483.htm 11/6/03