The Oyez Project: 1954 Term Decisions

Berman v. Parker (No. 22)

No details yet.

Brown v. Board of Education (II) (No. 1)

What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I?

The Court held that the problems identified in Brown I required varied local solutions. Chief Justice Warren conferred much responsibility on local school authorities and the courts which originally heard school segregation cases. They were to implement the principles which the Supreme Court embraced in its first Brown decision. Warren urged localities to act on the new principles promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed."

Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines (No. 44)

No details yet.

Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros. (No. 173)

No details yet.

Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co. (No. 357)

No details yet.

Peters v. Hobby (No. 376)

No details yet.

Rice v. Sioux City Cemetery (No. 28)

No details yet.

Society For Savings v. Bowers (No. 204)

No details yet.

Toth v. Quarles (No. 3)

No details yet.

Williams v. Georgia (No. 412)

No details yet.

Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma (No. 184)

Did the Oklahoma law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while the law may have been "needless" and "wasteful," it was the duty of the legislature, not the courts, "to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the new requirement." The Court emphasized that "[t]he day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought."