Cases - 1949 term

Communications Assn. v. Douds

Mon, 10 Oct 1949 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Communications Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Douds

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Opinion

339 U.S. 382 (1950)

Argued

October 10-11, 1949

Decided

Monday, May 8, 1950

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

None

United States v. Rabinowitz

Wed, 11 Jan 1950 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

293

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Rabinowitz

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Opinion

339 U.S. 56 (1950)

Argued

Wednesday, January 11, 1950

Decided

Monday, February 20, 1950

Facts of the Case

FBI agents arrested Rabinowitz in his one-room office. Rabinowitz was charged with selling and possessing forged government stamps. The officers searched his office without a search warrant and seized the stamps. The stamps were introduced as evidence. Rabinowitz was convicted. He appealed.

Question

Did the search violate the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement?

Conclusion

The Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. The search may be of the person arrested and of the premises where the arrest occurs.

Sweatt v. Painter

Tue, 04 Apr 1950 13:00:00 +0000

Location

University of Texas Law School

727 E Dean Keeton St Austin TX 78705

Austin, TX 78705

United States

30° 17' 20.4288" N, 97° 43' 49.0296" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Heman Marion Sweatt

Respondent

Painter

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Opinion

339 U.S. 629 (1950)

Argued

Tuesday, April 4, 1950

Decided

Monday, June 5, 1950

Facts of the Case

In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, a black man, applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. State law restricted access to the university to whites, and Sweatt's application was automatically rejected because of his race. When Sweatt asked the state courts to order his admission, the university attempted to provide separate but equal facilities for black law students.

Question

Did the Texas admissions scheme violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause required that Sweatt be admitted to the university. The Court found that the "law school for Negroes," which was to have opened in 1947, would have been grossly unequal to the University of Texas Law School. The Court argued that the separate school would be inferior in a number of areas, including faculty, course variety, library facilities, legal writing opportunities, and overall prestige. The Court also found that the mere separation from the majority of law students harmed students' abilities to compete in the legal arena.