 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Sweatt v. Painter: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
'''Judgment''': Reversed. | '''Judgment''': Reversed. | ||
'''Case Link''': | |||
*[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/629/#tab-opinion-1939889 Full text at Justia.com] | |||
Revision as of 04:10, October 23, 2019
| Sweatt v. Painter | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 339 US 629 (1950) 70 S. Ct. 848 94 L. Ed. 1114 |
| Date decided | June 5, 1950 |
| Appealed from | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Distinguished | Plessy v. Ferguson |
| Related | Brown v. Board of Education |
|- cellpadding="10" border="1" !unanimous |written by Vinson |- Facts: In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, a black man, applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. State law restricted access to the university to whites, and Sweatt's application was automatically rejected because of his race. When Sweatt asked the state courts to order his admission, the university attempted to provide separate but equal facilities for black law students.
Issue: Did the Texas admissions scheme violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding: Yes. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required Sweatt's admission to the University of Texas Law School.
Rationale: The Court found that the "law school for Negroes," which was to have opened in 1947, would have been grossly unequal to the University of Texas Law School. The Court argued that the separate school would be inferior in a number of areas, including faculty, course variety, library facilities, legal writing opportunities, and overall prestige. The Court also found that the mere separation from the majority of law students harmed students' abilities to compete in the legal arena.
Judgment: Reversed.
Case Link:
