Cases - 1952 term

Brown v. Board of Education (I)

Tue, 09 Dec 1952 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Board of Education

120 SE 10th Ave Topeka KS 66612

Topeka, KS 66612

United States

39° 2' 45.6432" N, 95° 40' 28.9092" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Brown

Respondent

Board of Education of Topeka

Consolidation

Briggs v. Elliott, No. 2

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Argued

December 9-11, 1952

Reargued:

December 7-9, 1953

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1954

Facts of the Case

Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries. This case was decided together with Briggs v. Elliott and Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County.

Question

Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Brown, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, intangible issues foster and maintain inequality. Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority. The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation.

United States v. Reynolds

Tue, 21 Oct 1952 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Reynolds

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Opinion

345 U.S. 1 (1953)

Argued

Tuesday, October 21, 1952

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1953

Facts of the Case

An airplane carrying several military personnel and several civilians crashed while conducting tests of "secret electronic equipment." The widows of the three civilians killed sued and asked for full disclosure of the Air Force?s accident investigation report. The report included information pertaining to the secret electronic equipment. The Air Force refused to provide the information, saying that to do so would threaten national security. Absent the report, the District Court and Court of Appeals viewed the question of negligence in the widow's favor and ruled for the plaintiffs.

Question

If the government invokes privilege to withhold information in civil proceedings, must the trial court view the point on which evidence is withheld in the plaintiff's favor?

Conclusion

No. In a 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice Fred Vinson, the court held that cause for privilege must be reasonably demonstrated. As a result, the government may withhold information for reasons of national security even when that information is vital to the plaintiff's case. On remand, the plaintiffs lost.

United States v. Kahriger

Tue, 16 Dec 1952 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Residence of Kahriger Philadelphia, PA

United States

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

167

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kahriger

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Decided By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Opinion

345 U.S. 22 (1953)

Argued

Tuesday, December 16, 1952

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1953

Facts of the Case

In 1951, Congress adopted the Gamblers' Occupational Tax Act which required gamblers to register with the Collector of Internal Revenue and levied a tax on their gambling income.

Question

Did the Act violate the Fifth and Tenth Amendments?

Conclusion

The Court upheld the law. Justice Reed argued that the law did not violate a person's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because under its registration provisions, individuals were "not compelled to confess to acts already committed." The statute simply informed people who wanted to "engage in the business of wagering" that they would be required to "fulfill certain conditions." The Tenth Amendment was not offended as Reed found that the tax produced revenue and was not inconsistent with similar taxes which the Court had previously approved.

Bolling v. Sharpe

Tue, 09 Dec 1952 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Sousa Junior High School

3650 Ely Place Southeast Washington DC 20019

Washington, DC 20019

United States

38° 53' 0.5892" N, 76° 57' 7.9776" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Bolling

Respondent

Sharpe

Consolidation

Briggs v. Elliott, No. 2

Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, No. 4

Gebhart v. Belton, No. 10

Heard By

Vinson Court (1949-1953)

Decided By

Warren Court (1953-1954)

Opinion

347 U.S. 497 (1954)

Argued

December 9-11, 1952

Reargued:

December 8-9, 1953

Decided

Monday, May 17, 1954

Facts of the Case

On account of their race, black children in Washington D.C. were denied admission to the same public schools which white children attended.

Question

Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington D.C. violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Bolling, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that racial discrimination in the public schools of Washington D.C. denied blacks due process of law as protected by the Fifth Amendment. Noting the legal peculiarities of the District of Columbia, Chief Justice Warren recognized that the Fifth Amendment (which applied to the District) did not contain an equal protection clause while the Fourteenth Amendment (which was used as the standard for outlawing school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education) did. Lacking an equal protection standard to invalidate the District's segregation, Warren creatively relied on the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of "liberty" to find the segregation of the Washington D.C. schools unconstitutional.