宪法案例

宪法案例

案情简介：

1954年，美国联邦最高法院就来自堪萨斯、南卡罗莱纳、弗吉尼亚和特拉华四个州的集体诉讼案做出合并审理意见。这四个案子的共同特点是，在以上四个州，法律允许种族隔离，即白人孩子和黑人孩子在公立学校分校学习。原告提出废除允许以种族为准分校学习的法律。同时质疑1896年美国联邦最高法院在Plessy v． Ferguson -案中所确立的“隔离但平等”的原则。以Warren为首席大法官的联邦最高法院认为，种族隔离违反了美国联邦宪法第十四修正案关于“平等保护”的规定。本案的审判结果是具有里程碑意义的，它宣布了那些支持分别设立白人黑人公立学校的州法律是违反宪法的，并推翻了当时已经存在了半个世纪之久的“隔离但平等”原则。

Brown v. Board of Ed. of Topeka, ShawneeCounty. Kan.

347 U. S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686U. S. 1954.

Mr. Chief Justice 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 commonlegal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion. In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka. They brought this action in

1

the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute which permits, but does not require, cities of more than 15 000 population to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students. Pursuant to that authority, the Topeka Board of Education elected to establish

2

segregated elementary schools. Other public schools in the community, however, are operated on a nonsegregated basis. The three-judge District Court, found that

3

segregation in public education has a detrimental effectupon Negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the Negro and white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational.

4

qualifications of teachers. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U. S.C. s1253,

5

28 U. S. C. A. s1253. In the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in ClarendonCounty. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. The three-judge District Court denied the requested relief. The court found that the 12

地区法院，是联邦初审法院。 种族隔离小学。 3

有害的作用。 4

United States code。 5

United States Code Annotated.

Negro schools were inferior to the white schools and ordered the defendants to begin immediately to equalize the facilities. But the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs' admission to the white schools

6

during the equalization program. This Court vacated the District Court's judgment

7

and remanded the case for the purpose of obtaining the court's views on a report filedby the defendants concerning the progress made in the equalization program. On remand, the District Court found that substantial equality had been achieved except for buildings and that the defendants were proceeding to rectify this inequality as well. The case is again here on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. s 1253, 28 U.S.C.A.s 1253.

In the Virginia case, Davis v. CountySchool Board, the plaintiffs' are Negro children of high school age residing in PrinceEdwardCounty. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. The three-judge District Court denied the requested relief. The court found the Negro school inferior in physical plant, curricula, and transportation, and ordered the defendants forthwith to provide substantially equal curricula and transportation and to \all reasonable diligence and dispatch to remove\inequality in physical plant. But, as in the South Carolina case, the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs' admission to the white schools during the equalization program. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. s 1253,28 U. S. C. A. s 1253.

In the Delaware case, Gebhart v. Belton, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in New Castle County. They brought this action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and

8

whites in public schools. The Chancellor gave judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered their immediate admission to schools previously attended only by white children, on the ground that the Negro schools were inferior with respect to teacher training, pupil-teacher ratio, extracurricular activities, physical plant, and time and distance involved in travel. The Chancellor also found that segregation itself results in an inferior education for Negro children, but did not rest his decision on that ground. The Chancellor's decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Delaware,which intimated, however, that the defendants might be able to obtain a modification of the decree after equalization of the Negro and white schools had been accomplished. The defendants, contending only that the Delaware 'courts had errored in ordering the immediate admission of the Negro plaintiffs to the white

910

schools, applied to this Court for certiorari. The writs as granted the plaintiffs, who were successful below, did not submit a cross-petition. 67

使无效。 发回重审。 8

有利于原告的判决。 9

调卷令。 10

令状。

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to thepublicschools of their community on a nonsegregatedbasis. In each instance, they have been denied admission to schools attended by white children 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 the plaintiffs on the so-called \but equal\doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 16 S. Ct.1138, 41 1. Ed. 256. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities are separate. In the Delaware case, the 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 \and cannot be made \laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took

11

jurisdiction. Argument was heard in the 1952 Term,and reargument was heard this

12

Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.

Reargument was largely devoted to the 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 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,

1314

they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the Post War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”. Their opponents, just as certainly, were

15

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 degree of certainty.

An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment's history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public education at that time. 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, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further 1112

开庭期。 提出，提议。 13

非决定性的。 14

渴望的。 15

对抗性的。

in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education

16

did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states; and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effec.t on public education. In the first case in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. The doctrine of \but equal\v, Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the \education. In Cumming v. Board of Education of RichmondCounty, 175 U. S. 528, 20 S. Ct. 197, 44 1. Ed. 262, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U. S. 78, 48 S. Ct.91, 72 1. Ed. 172, the validity of the doctrine itselfwas not challenged. In more recent cases, all on the graduate school level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students but denied to Negro students of the same

17

educational qualifications. State of Missoun ex rel. Games v. Canada,305U.S.337, 59S.Ct.232, 83L.Ed.208; Sipuelv.Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, 332 U. S.631, 68 S. Ct.299, 92 1.Ed. 247; Sweattv.Painter, 339 U.S.629, 70 S.Ct.848, 94 L.Ed. 1114; McLaurin v. OklahomaState Regents, 339U. S. 637, 70 S. Ct. 851, 94 1. Ed. 11A9. In none of these cases was it necessary to re-examine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.

18

In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v.. Painter,.there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other \factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.

In approaching this problem, we cannot tum the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local 1617

未成熟的。

ex rel是拉丁文ex relatione的缩写，意为”根据告发”，指总检察长根据私人的申诉和要求，以国家或州的名义提起的诉讼。 18

在本案中。

governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values,in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days,it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other \factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

In Sweatt v. Painter, supra (339 U. S.629, 70 S. Ct. 850) in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on \incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school\In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra (339 U. S. 637, 70 S. Ct. 853) , the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: \ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession\Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to theirstatus in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely everto be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:

\detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has

19

the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually

20

interpreted as denotingthe inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the

21

sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to (retardthe educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial (ly) integrated school system\

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of

Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. 1920

认可，批准。 表示 21

妨碍、迟延

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/mhk7.html