xt7msb3wtd0h_52 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2.dao.xml unknown 166 Cubic Feet 381 document boxes, seven textile items, three map folders, one artwork archival material 72m2 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Frederick Moore Vinson papers Economic stabilization. Elections -- United States -- Congresses. Judges -- Correspondence. Judges -- United States. Judicial opinions Judicial process -- United States Legislators -- Correspondence. New Deal, 1933-1939. World War, 1914-1918 -- Veterans. World War, 1939-1945. Sweatt v. Painter - no. 44 text Sweatt v. Painter - no. 44 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_207/Folder_9/Multipage6245.pdf 1949 1949 1949 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_52 xt7msb3wtd0h '22. . W? K: (1:11:41 Si {“ «fig/5’4 T t

/

__..___.._._,.‘

t ' "‘ " "in: Lfi Lie

may ”- raMC-«Hr‘v .~.-

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. if—Oe'ronfin TERM. 1045i.

Heinan Marion Sweatt.
Petitioner. On V‘Krit of Certiorari to
r. the Supreme Court of
Theophilis shit-tot Painter. the State of Texas.
et al.

JHO

[May~, 1.5%.]

1
71

8h

Mn. Cit Hit" Jt‘s‘ricn Vixso): delivered the opinion of the
Court.

SEMI-3338

This case and .lIcLaztrz'n V. O/t'ZG/IOHNL State Bey/cats,
post. p. *. present different aspects of this general ques-
tion: To what extent does the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment limit the power of a state to
distinguish between students of different races in profes—
sional and graduate edu ‘ation in a state university?
Broader issues have been urged for our consideration. but
we adhere to the principle of deciding constitutional ques-
tions only in the context of the particular case before the
Court. We have frequently reiterated that this Court
will decide constitutional questions only when necessary
to the disposition of the case at hand. and that such deci-
sions will be drawn as narrowly as possible. Rescue Army
y. filtuu'cipal Court, 331 ['3 S. 545) (1947). and cases cited
therein. Because of this traditional reluctance to extend
constitutional interpretations to situations or facts which
are not before the Court. much of the excellent research
and detailed argument presented in these cases is un-
necessary to their disposition.

In the instant case. petitioner filed an application for
admission to the ['tiiyel'sity of Tean Law School for
the February. 1946 term. His application was rejected

'tJS‘El

EQHSW‘ :lBIHO
US. it

“$413105“.

 

 11E
11.11 3

1 AW?“

,8“

11‘\:\\‘\(L

““613 E? 3118“CE

SUPRE EME COURT (BE THE UNTTED S TATE

7111121211 T111111. 1049.

On Writ of Certiorari to
tl1e:11preine (“curt of
lheo‘1l11ilis 1‘ :11 cl: cl l’ainter 11‘- , NC 01 “VS
(at Q]

[May —. 19.30.]

Mn. ("1111f Jt's'i‘ici; ‘1'1:~;.5t311t1z111y
11(111:1T 1'11111T1t1115. At (‘0 (1111111'11tit111 of tho 51:: 111111111115.
111 1111(111111T1-‘s'1: 19416, the («nut denied the \‘1'1'1t 011 the
511111111131; that the authorized universitv (111161115 had
1111111111111 1111 (11'1101' (‘f'tT'tiltfi for tho (1110111111: (11' :11 T1111 513110111
1'111' N11111'o115' the {1111011111111 F1111 11:11.». \\ 11110 1191111011015
1111111131 11:11.5 111111411111. such :1 57111111111 11:15: 11111110 available.
11111 110111111111111'1’1t'11151'111 t(1 1511;115101 th111'(1111. T110 T0535
(‘11111't (1f(‘1\'11\1:1(11T5: 5: t :15 ‘1(T( the trial (1(1111‘t'5 11143.1, 1(111t
11111] (11'1‘111'111 th1'1 (11,.111: 5,11 “10111111111011 g(11(11"11"3j1' to the t11111
(111111't 1'11'1 1111th111' 111'111101111111gi5‘ 11111111111 1110j111‘11ce to the
right 1,11'11111‘ party to this 51111."

011 111111211111. :1 1101111111: ““1115 11.0111 (111 the 157‘
(1111111h‘1y of th(1 (1(111(1:1.t11111:1T 1111111111115 at the 11(1'1‘1'
115111111 511111111] :15 (10111111111111 with th(1 Tvt1i\'(‘11'51t1' (11' To
'l,:1‘1\' SvhuuT. 171114111}: that tho 111,111' school offered
111111111 “111"1\'1T11;1'115. :11T1‘:111t:1;1'(15. 111111 (111111’11'111111‘111-5
5111111'11t' 1:111 :11T1511111t111TT: (“(111111111111t 10 th(1.5(,1 (1. (11111111 by
th(1 M11111 tt11‘.‘hit(1 5tu1‘1111115 :11 th‘11 l 111\'(11:-1tj-.' (11'1115:1.15,"
th11 t1'1:11 11111111 1111111111111111111111111115. H111 (111111 of (71111
1\111111;1T.5':1t'.7:'11111 t.210>.\"1'.21 1. ‘3 t Edition—

‘1
1
11

‘11 :1111111;11'5 111:1: 11111 T'111\'1-1'511j1' 11.15 T1111: :51'1'11111111 111 \11T,.

Tt‘

511111111115, 111 :111‘111'114111111 \'."1111 11111 $13111 T;1\‘»', (N. ('111151, \11‘.
VII. §§ T, H: 'i'1vx. (11151111. §§L'.I'1T.1, " L. "1‘!“ (\1'111'111111, 1.1371,
511.1111, l‘.‘-t‘.H.

 

 4
S‘VFATT it. PAINTER.

er's application for a writ of error was denied by the
Texas Supreme Court. We granted eertiorari, 338 TV. S.
803 (10-10). because of the manifest importance of the
constitutional issues involved.

The liniversity of Texas Law School. from which peti—
tioner was excluded. was staffed by a faculty of sixteen
full-tin'te and three part—time professors. some of whom
are nationally recognized authorities in their field. Its
student body numbered 850. The library contained over
03.000 yolunies. Among the other facilities ayailable to
the students, were a law rcyiew. moot court facilities.
scholarship funds. and Order of the Coif affiliation. The
schools alumni occupy the most distinguished positions
in the private practice of the law and in the public life
of the State. It may properly be considered one of the
nation‘s ranking: law schools.

The law school for Negroes which was to hate opened
in February. 1047. would have had no independent fac tlty
or library. The teachingy was to be carried on by four
members of the l'niyersity of Texas Law School faculty,
who were to maintain their otiices at the ['niversity of
Texas while teaching at both institutions. Few of the
10000 volumes ordered for the library had arrived; 3 nor
was there any full-time librarian. The school lacked
accreditation.

Since the trial of this case. respondents report the
opening of a law school at the Texas State T'niyersity
for Negroes. It is apparently on the road to full accredi—
tation. lt has a faculty of five full—time professors; a
student body of 23; a library of some 16,500 Volumes

'-‘“Stndcnts of the interim School of Law of the Texas State l'ni—
yersity for Nearoes lltlt'alt'tl in Austin, whereas the permanent School
was to be located at lloustonl shall have use of the State Law Library
in the (‘apitol lhtildina'. . . Tex. ('iv. Stat. Art, 2034b. §~ .ll (Yer—
non, Supp. 1040). [I is not clear that this privilege was anjt'thing
more than was extended to all citizens or" the State.

 

 4.th

at S‘rl'lii‘x'lvl‘ 2'. PAINTER.

serviced by a full—time staff: a practice court
aid association; and one alumnus who ha
member of the Texas Bar.

Whether the I'niversity of Texas Law School i
rared with the original or the new law school for Negji‘oex
we cannot find substantial equality in the educa iona
opportunities uttered white and Negro law students by
the State. To terms of number of the faculty. \ariety of
courses and opportunity for specialization. size of the
student body. scope. of the library. availability of law
review and similar activities. the l'niversity of Texas law
School is superior. What is more important. the E'ni—
versity of Texas Law School possesses to a far greatei
degree those qualities which are incapable of objective
measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.
Such qualities. to name but a few. include reputation of
the faculty. experience of the administration. position and
influence of the alumni. standing in the eonnnuuity. tradi—
tions and prestige. It is difficult to believe that one who
had a free choice between these law schools would consider
the question close.

Moreover. although the law is a highly learned pro—
fession. we are well aware that it is an intensely practical
one. The law school. the proving ground for legal l‘arn—
ing and practice. cannot be effective in isolation from
the individuals and institutions with which the law inter-
acts. Few students and no one who has practiced law
would choose to study in an academic vacuum. removed
from the interplay of ideas and the exchange of views
with which the law is concerned. The law school to
which Texas is willing to admit petitioner excludes from
its student body members of the racial groups which
number 836; of the population of the State and include
most of the lawyers. witnesses. jurors. judges and other
ol’l’icials with whom petitioner will inevitably be dealing
when he becomes a member of the Texas Bar. \l'ith

 

 4A
swtavr'r p. PAINTER. 5

such a substantial and significant segment of society
excluded. we cannot conclude that the education offered
petitioner is substantially equal to that which he would
receive if admitted to the University of Texas Law
School.

It may be argued that excluding petitioner from that,
school is no different from excluding white students from
the new law school. This contention overlooks realities.
.It is unlikely that a member of a group so decisively in
the majority, attending a school with rich traditions and
prestigim which only a history of consistently maintained
>xccllence could command, would claim that the oppor—
tunities afforded him for legal education were unequal
to those held open to petitioner. That such a claim.
if made. would be dishonored by the State. is no answer.
“Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through
imliscrintinate imposition of inequalities.” Shelley v.

lime/Her, 334 U. S. 1. 22 (10—18).

It is fundamental that these cases concern rights which
are personal and 1')resent. This Court has stated unani—
mously that “The State must provide [legal education]
for [petitioner] in conformity with the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as

}

soon as it does for applicants of any other group.’ Sipuel
v. Board of Regents, 332 If. S. 631. 633 (1948). That
case “did not present the issue whether a state might
not. satisfy the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment by establishing a separate law school for
Negroes.” Fisher v. Hurst, 333 1'. S. 147. 150 (1048).
In ilIissouri or re]. Gaines v. Canada, 305 [7. S. 337, 351
(1038:). the Court. speaking through Chief Justice Hughes,
declared that “. . . petitioner's right was a personal one.
It. was as an individual that he was entitled to the equal
protection of the laws. and the State was bound to furnish
him within its borders facilities for legal education sub-
stantially equal to those the State there afforded for

 

 G SWEATT 11. RUNTER

persons of the White 111100. Whether 01‘ not 01 11101 Negroes
S01111'11t the Same 0111101‘11111itj'. " 1 11cSe 0110 the 01113' 11.1503
111 this C 0111t 11111011 111050111 the issue 01' the 0011 St 1111101111
11111111111 01' 11100. (11S‘1111ct10nS in state-S11111101ted 91'“ 11.1111. 0
111111 111‘01'0SS101131 education.

In accordance with these caSeS. petitioner 111011' 01111111
his {1111 constitutionzd right: 1052111 011110211‘.1 10n 0011111111011‘
to that 01"1'01‘011 11y the State 10 S111110ntS of 01h 01
Such education is not {1111111111310 to 111111 111 21 S011
.S:c11001 as 1111011011 113' the (“11110. “'0 cannot
5111100 1:11.11 10S110111101113 111111 the (100111110 01'
11'111'1/11.S1111,1t'13 1 . S. .337 (1811111,1c11111'0
111113111011t 11010113. N01- 1111011110 10111011 1101111
tiun 111111 I’lmxy 1'. [1111/1/11311111 S11011111 11c; 1:003:11111111011 in
1111;11t 01' conte1n1101‘n1'V 11110111011110 respecting the 111111101"
01' the 17011111011111 11111e1111111ent 111111 the effects 01" 1'
scgl'cgz1ti11n.\‘0e 911/1111 11. —.

110110111 that t1101 (111111 1 10tect 1011 C‘ 11111S1. 01 the
teenth Aincnthnent 1011111103 111 mt petitioner be {111111
to the 1’111101S1 '01 11.1an 111111 81-11001 The 111119:1
is 101015011 {1.1 11111 the 0:111S0 1S 1011101111011 101 111-(0000

consistent with this, 0111111011.

Bc 111115111.

 

 44
2 SWEATT 11.1’111NTER.

5010131 1100311120 110 15 £1 Negro} Petitioner the1'eu'11011
brought this suit for 1111111113111115 against the {111111'011111'1te
50111101 011' t11,1:1 11.2: 1051101111 111ts1101'e. t0 00111110111181111111111531011.
At. that time. there 11.115 110 11111 5011001 111 Texas 11111011
a111111ttet1 Neejroes.

The State t1'1:11 0-0111't 100031112011 th:1 '1t the 3011011 01'

the 1112110, 111 110.111. 11111 11et1t101101' the 011 11011't1111it1rtt0 gain
:1 101.2111 (1111100111011 1111110 111'11111111g'1t to others (10111111011
111111 01' the 01111111 1110t0011011 of the 111115 11111111'1111tee11 111111
11y11110110111te11111t11 111101111111011t. The 00111t1111111ot grant
the 1101101' requested. 11011111011. hut continued the 011.20 101'
six mouths to {111011' the State to 51111111131 81111: 51111111111111'
0111131 11101111111521. At the 01111111111011 of 111.10 8111110111113.
111 1100011111111, 1011). the court 11a 1111011 the
511001111: that the {1111110112011 11111\'e1':2 ,
1111111111111 1111 11111111 0311111: 1'01' the 01101111151 of a :111' 8011001
1111' K011111102 the 10111111111151 15011111121131. 1111110 11011t1<111e1"s
111111031 was 110111111112. $511011 :1. 9011001 was; 111111-1110 :11'1111u1110.
hut 1111t111111111111 1111112011 to register therein. ”11113111112
( 11111'1'1111'( 1\ 11 ‘111 11 1:112 2112151110, the t1'1111 001111 S 1111111111011t
{11111 01'1101'011 the 0311.211“10111111111011 {gr-11011511131 t0 the trim
0111111 1111' further 11111001111111.1112 without 111011111100 t0 the
1'1e11t 111' {1113' 11111131 to this suit.”

()21 1011131111. :1 11011111111 was 1111111 011 the 1.2 110, of the
1111111111tv 01' the 01111031101131 11101111102 at the 111111111}: 0.211111-
1112111111 2011111111 :12 00111111111111 with the 1 111101.21ty 01' "[0102
11:11“ <1'h11111. 1111111111111 that the new S011 .1111 01‘1'01'011 11011—
111111111' “11111111111132. :11.1\':111t:;1r.1;0:2. 011111 0111101111111110521 '1'111' the
121111111 111' 1111': .21111s2't:111t1:1111\' 1111111\':11111111 to 1110150 011011011 113'
the State to \'.'11 1t“ 1 :11 111111 111\eI';~1 1. 01' '1‘111111512'."
the t1'1:11 001111 1111' 111::11111111111231110 (01111 111' (1111
.\1>11:1:11.2 :11111'1111-1.. .\".. ‘_11 ‘1-12111‘21-‘11.1101111011—

‘11 :11111101'2 11::1' 1' r1 11:1.2 111-111 1'1-211'11111111 111 1.1111111
.211111111». 111 :11"1'1" 1:.1 .7". z 1111' 1:111' .1411.“ '1‘1'.\'. (31121.21. .v\1't.
\411, 931 1. 1‘1: '1‘1 '. .i' 37111, Q‘Jtlt) 1101111111, 111;"),

5111111, 1111111.

 

 414
Sll'EATT 1'. l’AlN' ‘17P. 3

er’s application for a writ of error was denied by the
’10an \11111'e111e Court V» e 2'11‘111ted eertiorari. 338 1'. S
3-33 (161119). because of the manifest importance of the
constitutional issues involved.

The. l 11i3 el Q1t3' ofl ie.\ as Lav gehool from 33l11Lh peti-
tioner 33 11K e\elutled 331R statted by a faculty of sixteen
full— that and three 11a1t— time 11r'sote so ors some 01" whom
are nationally recognized authoiitiers in their field. Its
student l1t1d3' numbered 8.10. The library contained over
(371.000 volumes. Among the other facilities available to
the students were a law review. moot eourt facilities.

seholar: l1 in funds. and Order of the Coif affiliation. The
school 5 alumni oeeupv the most distinguished positions
in the private 111'11- ice of the 1133' and in the public life
of the State. it may 11rot1er3l he consideiel one of the
nation's 1'1’1nliing law StllOUlrE.

The l113 ' school for Negroes which 3311.; to have opened
in 1’el11'ua1'3'. 1514?. would have had no independent faeulty
or library. The tea hint: was: to he carried on by four
dithfl~Il-FSS>‘~PR1WWT 111(‘111l1t‘1‘S of the ['1113'ersit3' ot'
'l‘exm Law l 1hool t'aeullv. who were to 111aintain their
(1Tllt‘t‘S at the l 11i3'e1'sit3' of Texas while teaehing at both
institutions. Few of the 101W) volumes ordered for the
lil11'1u‘5' had artiv ed: '-' nor was the1e 11113' lull—time lihrar—
ian. The F(l1()()ll l11:l;e1l aeereditatiou.

Hinee the trial of this ease. 1‘1’\F1p(11!tlt'1‘1lS report the
opening" of a law sehool at the Texas Nate l 11iveriiit3'
t't11'N1';:1't1e.<. It is 111111: 11'e11tl3 on the 111ad to full aeeredi—
111111111 It has a l1lt tilt}. (1t live tull— tin 1e 111'1111':'=St11',<: a
student hod 3' ol _ ’1‘); a lihrarv ot some it} 1(11’) 3t1l1111te

'~'"1\'1u.le11'.~ 111' the interim 551'311111l 113' Lawt1l'tl:e'l‘w.\'a<:’~1el'ni—
versitv I'or.\'eti'1‘t1:-,< llttt'Jllt‘tl in .‘111~1i11,33'l11'1'1':1~' the 111-1'1111111'1'1 '1‘t'ho11l
\3‘:1-. 111 lu- awaa-d 1.1 llot1~twnl >l::1ll l1.t‘.‘t' 11<1vt1l lllt’H‘l’lt' 1113 l111'1v
in the ( ‘:1;1i111l l‘111iltli1ttr. . . 'l‘11x1('i3',1\'1.1t1.‘11't,'_’1'1Il-ll1,;: 1 (\1-1—
111111, 5111111, litvlltt. lt i< not elv':11' that 1111‘ privilege v.11" 11113111111:
111111‘1-than\1'::>1.\Ie11ded 111:1lleitizwihttz'theStztte.

 

 ,4 .
~11;

4 FWTCATT r. PAINTER.

serviced by a full—time staff; a practice court and legal
aid association: and one alumnus who has become a
member of the Texas Ba‘.

Whether the I'niversity of Texas Law School is coin—
pared with the original or the new law school for Negroes.
we cannot find substantial equality in the educational
opportunities offered white and Negro law students by
the State. In terms of number of the faculty. variety of
courses and opportunity for specialization. size of the
student body. scope of the library, availability of law
review and similar activities. the University of Texas Law
School is superior. What is more important perhaps. the
University of Texas Law School possesses to a far greater
degree those qualities which are incapable of objective
measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.
Such qualities. to name but a few, include reputation of
the faculty, experience of the administration. position and
influence of the alumni. standing in the community. tradi—
tions and prestige. It is difficult to believe that one who
had a free choice between these law schools would consider
the question close.

Moreover. although the law is a highly learned pro-
fession. we are well aware that it is an intensely practical
one. The law school. the proving ground for legal learn—
ing and practice, cannot be effective in isolation from
the individuals and institutions with which the law inter—
acts. Few students and no one who has practiced law
would choose to study in an academic vacuum, removed
from the interplay of ideas and the Melationships I...»
with which the law is concerned. The law school to x
which Texas is willing to admit- petitioner excludes from "
its student body members of the racial groups which
number 85% of the population of the State and include
most, of the lawyers. witnesses. jurors. judges and other
officials with whom petitioner will inevitably be dealing
when he becomes a member of the Texas Bar. With

 

 ii
swmrr a PAINTER. 5

such a substantial and significant segment of society
excluded, we cannot conclude that the education offered
petitioner is substantially equal to that which he would
receive if admitted to the T'niversity of Texas Law
School.

It may be argued that excluding petitioner from that
school is no different from excluding white students from
the new law school. This contention overlooks realities.
It is unlikely that a member of a group so decisively in
the majority. attending a school with rich traditions and
prestige which only a history of consistently maintained
excellence could command. would claim that the oppor—
tunities afforded him for legal education were unequal
to those held open to petitioner. That such a claim.
if made. would be dishonored by the State. is no answer.
“Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through
indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.” Shelley v.
chmcr, 334 U. S. 1. 22 (1948‘).

It is fundamental that these cases concern rights which
are personal and present. This Court has stated unani-
mously that “The State must provide [legal education]
for [petitioner] in conformity with the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it a.
soon as it does for applicants of any other group.” Sipucl
Y. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631. 633 (1948). That
case “did not present the issue whether a state might.
not, satisfy the equal protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment by establishing a separate law school for
Negroes.” Fisher v. Hurst, 333 U. S. 147, 150 (1948).
In Alissom‘i ca? rel. Gaines V. Canada, 305 U. S. 337, 331
(1038). the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Hughes,
declared that “. . . petitioner’s right was a personal one.
It was as an individual that he was entitled to the equal
protection of the laws, and the State was bound to furnish
him within its borders facilities for legal education sub-
stantially equal to those the State there afforded for

 

 SEE ALSO - NO. 34 — MCLAURIN V. OKLA.
STATE REGENTS

 

 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 44.~—OCTOBER TERM, 194:9.

Heinan Marion Sweatt,
PCtitiOHCfi On “Hit of Certiorari to
v. the Supreme Court of
Theophilis Shickel Painter, the State Of Texas.
et al.

[June —1 1950.]

M11. CHIEF JUSTICE Vixsox deliVered the opinion of the
Court.

This case and .UcLaurin V. Oklahoma State Regents,
post, p. ——, present different aspects of this general ques-
tion: To what extent does the Equal Protection Clause of

the Fourteenth lniendnient limit the poue1 of a state to
d1st1110111sh between students of d1fte1ent 1:1(es in p10fes-
sional and graduate education in a 53%;? uniV ersity‘?
B10a__d ler issues haVe been 1110ed fo1 0u1 consideration but
we adheIC to the p1inciple of deciding constitutional ques-
tions oan 111 the context of the pa1t1cular ca se befo1e the
C0111t We hate f1equently 1eite1ated that this Court
will decide constitutional questions only when neeessa1y
to the disposition of the case at hand and that such de eci-
sions w ill be thaw 11 as 11a1r011 lV as possible Rescue 17 my

.V11I11111/1pal Cowl 331 U. S. 549 (1947) and cases cited
thc1 0111 Because of this t1aditional reluctance to extend
constitutional interpretations to situations or facts which
are not before the Court. much of the excellent research
and detailed argument presented in these cases is 1111—
necessary to their disposition.

In the instant case, petitioner filed an application for
admission to the ['niVersity of Texas Law School for
the February, 1‘33) tern1. His application was rejected

 

 44

2 SWEATT v. PAINTER.

sol__c1y because he is a. \e