Brown v.

Board of Education
347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Quick Summary
Brown (plaintiff) multiple African American minors challenged school segregation
laws. Oliver Brown, among others, argued that segregated schools for black
children were inherently unequal and violated constitutional rights.
The dispute centered on whether racial segregation in public schools deprived
students of equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court concluded that
‘separate but equal’ schools are inherently unequal and unconstitutional, thus
overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.
Facts of the Case
A series of lawsuits filed by African American parents on behalf of their minor
children against various school boards. These parents, including Oliver Brown
(plaintiff), challenged the segregation of public schools based on race, which was
permitted or required by laws in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware.
The plaintiffs argued that such segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
Initially, against the Board of Education for Topeka, Kansas (defendant), the
federal district court upheld the segregation policy by referencing the precedent set
in Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine.
However, this decision was appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the
consolidated cases, recognizing the fundamental importance of the issue at hand.

Issue

Whether segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives
minority group children of equal educational opportunities, in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule of Law

The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that no state shall deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This principle opposes all state-imposed
discriminations based on race.
Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the history and context of public education and the Fourteenth
Amendment to address whether ‘separate but equal’ facilities were inherently
discriminatory. The consensus was that segregation in public schools created a sense of
inferiority among African American children that could have a detrimental effect on their
educational and personal growth, a perspective supported by contemporary psychological
research.

Given the importance of education for citizenship and professional development, and
considering that segregated schools foster a stigma of racial inferiority, the Court concluded
that such separation cannot provide truly equal educational opportunities. Therefore, the
‘separate but equal’ doctrine as applied to public education was deemed incompatible with
the Equal Protection Clause.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that segregated public schools are inherently unequal and violate
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court Directions

The Supreme Court requested further arguments to assist in formulating appropriate

remedies for desegregation and invited additional participation from interested parties
including the states enforcing segregation in public education.
Key Takeaways

1. Segregation in public education is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment.

2. ‘Separate but equal’ doctrine is not applicable to public education because

segregated schools are inherently unequal.

3. The decision marked a pivotal moment in civil rights history, setting a precedent for
further desegregation efforts across various sectors of society.

Case Summary
1. Reference details Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of the United States
Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. 576 US
(2015)
Date of decision: 26 June 2015
2. Facts of the case
The petitioners were two men whose same-sex partners had died and
fourteen same-sex couples who all brought cases in their respective District Courts
challenging either the denial of their right to marry or the right to have their
marriage performed elsewhere recognised in their own state. The cases were heard
in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, each of which defines marriage as
between a woman and a man. In each case, the relevant District Court found in
favour of the petitioner. Each of the respondents, who were state officials
responsible for enforcing the relevant laws, appealed. The Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit consolidated the respondents’ appeals and reversed the decisions,
finding in favour of the respondents. The petitioners then sought certiorari in the
Supreme Court.
The situation of three of the petitioners illustrates the nature of the cases.
James Obergefell and his partner of over twenty years, John Arthur travelled from
Ohio to Maryland in order to marry. John died three months later of amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis but Ohio law prevented James being listed on John’s death
certificate as surviving spouse. Same-sex partners April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse
have three adopted children; however, Michigan permits only opposite-sex married
couples or single persons to adopt, with the result that each child is treated as
having only one parent, and if that partner passed away, the other would have no
legal right to the children. Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York,
where same-sex marriage was legal, before Ijpe was deployed to Afghanistan.
Upon his return, they settled in Tennessee where their marriage is not recognised,
with the result that their legal status in relation to each other changes as they travel
between states.
(Short: The petitioners consisted of two men whose same-sex partners had
passed away, alongside fourteen same-sex couples who challenged the denial of
their marriage rights in their respective District Courts. These cases arose in
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, where marriage was defined as
between a man and a woman. Despite initial victories for the petitioners in the
District Courts, state officials appealed the decisions. The Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit then reversed the rulings in favor of the respondents. Consequently,
the petitioners sought certiorari from the Supreme Court. Three specific cases
highlight the issues: James Obergefell and his partner John Arthur faced Ohio law's
refusal to recognize James as John's surviving spouse after John's death; April
DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a same-sex couple in Michigan, struggled with adoption
rights due to state restrictions; and Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura, who married
in New York but faced unrecognized marriage status in Tennessee, leading to legal
complications as they traveled between states.)
3. Rules
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
(…) nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.
4. Analysis
Each petitioner sought certiorari (review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals). They each argued that the actions of the relevant respondent violated the
Fourteenth Amendment by either denying them their right to marry, or by denying
the recognition of their marriage legally performed in another state. The petitioners
argued that rather than intending to devalue marriage, it was their respect for the
institution of marriage which meant that they sought it for themselves.
The respondents argued that the petitioners did not seek recognition of the
right to marry, but sought recognition of a new and non-existent “right to same-sex
marriage”. They argued that marriage was by nature between a man and a woman
and recognition of same-sex marriage would demean the institution of marriage.
Further, the respondents warned that there had not been sufficient democratic
discourse to decide on an issue as important as the definition of marriage. In
addition, they argued that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, fewer
oppositesex couples would marry because the connection between marriage and
procreation would be severed. This would further harm the institution of marriage.
5. Decision The Court ruled by a majority of 5 to 4 in favour of the petitioners. The
majority decision, delivered by Justice Kennedy (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor,
and Kagan, JJ. joined), first considered the issue arising from the cases from
Michigan and Kentucky, of whether states are required to register same-sex
marriages.
5. Decision
The Court ruled by a majority of 5 to 4 in favour of the petitioners. The
majority decision, delivered by Justice Kennedy (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor,
and Kagan, JJ. joined), first considered the issue arising from the cases from
Michigan and Kentucky, of whether states are required to register same-sex
marriages.