Brown versus Board of Education decision (1954)
- Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.
- It overturned the legal foundation of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) in education, rejecting “separate but equal” and paving the way for more legal opposition to Jim Crow.
- The case was the culmination of decades of NAACP legal strategy, led by Charles Hamilton Houston and later Thurgood Marshall. Their arguments were guided by the 1930 Margold Report, which showed that segregation always produced inequality.
Note
The Margold Report (1930)
- Written by Nathan Ross Margold, a Harvard-educated lawyer, and commissioned by the NAACP under Walter White’s leadership.
- Proposed a comprehensive legal plan to attack racial segregation in education through the court system.
- Margold’s central idea was not to directly challenge the constitutionality of segregation, which was entrenched by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
- Instead, he aimed to target the unequal implementation of “separate but equal.” He observed that Black schools were consistently underfunded, overcrowded, poorly maintained, and staffed with underpaid teachers compared to white schools.
- The strategy proposed forcing Southern states to uphold the “equal” part of “separate but equal.”
- Margold anticipated that the economic burden of maintaining equal facilities would push states to abandon segregation altogether.
- The report laid out a gradualist legal strategy: build precedents by suing states for failing to provide equal facilities, then use those precedents to attack the foundation of segregation itself.
Precedent Cases That Weakened “Separate but Equal”
- Cases such as Murray v. Maryland (1936), Gaines v. Missouri (1938), Sweatt v. Painter (1950), and McLaurin v. Oklahoma (1950) chipped away at the legitimacy of “separate but equal,” especially in higher education.
- These cases proved that even well-funded segregated schools denied equal experiences and opportunities to Black students.
Tip
How U.S. Courts Use Precedent
- In the U.S., court cases that advance equality and rights are based on jurisprudence (prior similar cases).
- The U.S. judiciary operates under a common law system, where laws evolve through judicial precedent rather than a fixed legal code.
- Courts interpret the Constitution and prior rulings to decide new cases. This system contrasts with civil law systems, which rely strictly on codified statutes.
- For this Prescribed Topic, you do not need to know every individual case the NAACP cited. What matters is that Brown v. Board (1954) was the culmination of years of NAACP legal strategy built on precedent.
Structure of the Case
- Brown was a consolidated case, bringing together over 200 plaintiffs across five federal and state challenges: Briggs v. Elliott, Davis v. County School Board, Gebhart v. Belton, Brown v. Board, and Bolling v. Sharpe (DC).
- The lead plaintiff, Oliver Brown, was a parent in Topeka, Kansas. His daughter, Linda Brown, had to travel long distances to attend a segregated Black school, despite a white school being much closer.
- This hardship became a symbol of the injustice of “separate but equal” education.
- Earl Warren’s appointment as Chief Justice in 1953 was pivotal. He secured a unanimous ruling, stressing national unity and legitimacy of the Court.
The Court’s Reasoning
- Warren’s opinion emphasized that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
- Segregation harmed children’s development, dignity, and access to opportunity, making true equality impossible under the law.
- Although a victory, the ruling lacked a clear timeline or enforcement mechanism, resulting in slow and uneven implementation across states.
Implementation and Resistance to Brown v. Board
- In 1955, the Court issued Brown II, ordering desegregation with “all deliberate speed,” a vague phrase that allowed delays.
- This ambiguity enabled Southern states to obstruct integration through legal and bureaucratic hurdles.
- Most Southern states actively resisted. In 1956, 96 Southern congressmen signed the Southern Manifesto, denouncing the ruling and encouraging defiance.
Note
- The Southern Manifesto was a document written in 1956 by 19 U.S. Senators and 82 Representatives from Southern states opposing the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision.
- They argued that the Court’s ruling on desegregation was an overreach of judicial power and infringed on states’ rights.
- The manifesto encouraged states to resist integration “by all lawful means,” leading to widespread opposition and obstruction of school desegregation in the South.
Case study
Virginia’s Massive resistance
- In response to Brown v. Board (1954), Virginia’s government, led by Governor Thomas B. Stanley and Senator Harry F. Byrd, enacted the Stanley Plan.
- The plan allowed the state to close any public school that attempted to integrate, choosing to shut schools down rather than allow Black and white students to learn together.
- It also shifted control of student assignments to state-level bodies, removing local authority. These bodies imposed strict and discriminatory rules that made it extremely difficult for Black students to transfer to all-white schools, effectively maintaining segregation despite the Court’s ruling.
- This strategy of “massive resistance” delayed desegregation in Virginia for years, prolonging educational inequality and ensuring racial segregation persisted into the 1960s.
Federal Enforcement
- While some cities (e.g., Baltimore, St. Louis) desegregated early, the vast majority of the South resisted.
- It took federal intervention, hundreds of court orders, and even military enforcement (e.g., Little Rock, 1957) to begin meaningful school integration.
