missouri ex rel gaines v canada oyez

Decided December 12, 1938. The court considered that these were schools of high standing where one desiring to practice law in Missouri can get “as sound, comprehensive, valuable legal education” as in the University of Missouri; that the system of education in the former is the same as that in the latter and is designed to give the students a basis for the practice of law in any State where the Anglo-American system of law obtains; that the law school of the University of Missouri does not specialize in Missouri law and that the course of study and the case books used in the five schools are substantially identical. [305 175 This is far from unmistakable disregard of his rights and in the circum- In that view, we cannot regard the discrimination as excused by what is called its temporary character. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that states that provide a school to white students must provide in-state education to blacks as well. , 48 S.Ct. , 20 S.Ct. Supreme Court of the United States State of Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada et al.

, 39 S.Ct. While there is no express constitutional provision requiring that the white and negro races be separated for the purpose of higher education, the state court, on a comprehensive review of the state statutes, held that it was intended to separate the white and negro races for that purpose also. 478, 486, 182 A. The president of Lincoln University did not advert to the existence or prospective use of funds for that purpose when he advised petitioner to apply to the State Superintendent of Schools for aid under § 9622. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus to admit the applicant was issued to the officers and regents of the University of Maryland as the agents of the State entrusted with the conduct of that institution. This fact demonstrates the wisdom of the legislature in leaving it to the judgment of the board of curators to determine when it would be necessary or practicable to establish a law school for negroes at Lincoln University.

In the light of its ruling we must regard the question whether the provision for the legal education in other States of negroes resident in Missouri is sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement of equal protection, as the pivot upon which this case turns.

Accordingly, a writ of mandamus to admit the applicant was issued to the officers and 9625, Mo.St.Ann. Here, petitioner's right was a personal one.


That obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the States severally as governmental entities, — each responsible for its own laws establishing the rights and duties of persons within its borders. 590, 103 A.L.R.

The white resident is afforded legal education within the State; the negro resident having the same qualifications is refused it there and must go outside the State to obtain it. Co., 235 U.S. 151, 160; Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, 85, 86.
The state court has not ruled or intimated that their failure or refusal to establish a law school for a very few students, still less for one student, would have been an abuse of the discretion with which the curators were entrusted. Emphasizing the discretion of the curators, the court said: The state court has not held that it would have been the duty of the curators to establish a law school at Lincoln University for the petitioner on his application. On final hearing, an alternative writ was quashed and a peremptory writ was denied by the Circuit Court. 208 .

In that view, it necessarily followed that the curators of the University of Missouri acted in accordance with the policy of the State in denying petitioner admission to its School of Law upon the sole ground of his race. States could satisfy this requirement by allowing blacks and whites to attend the same Manifestly, the obligation of the State to give the protection of equal laws can be performed only where its laws operate, that is, within its own jurisdiction. U.S. 337, 354] Emphasizing the discretion of the curators, the court said: The statute was enacted in 1921. 1. By the operation of the laws of Missouri a privilege has been created for white law students which is denied to negroes by reason of their race. Whether by some other course it may be possible for her to avoid condemnation is matter for conjecture. , 397; Carter v. Texas,

pending the establishment of such a school, adequate provision has been made for the legal education of negro students in recognized schools outside of this State.

Petitioner Lloyd Gaines, a negro, was refused admission to the School of Law at the State University of Missouri. The admissibility of laws separating the races in the enjoyment of privileges afforded by the State rests wholly upon the equality of the privileges which the laws give to the separated groups within the State. U.S. 337, 339]

[305 9346-9349, Mo.St.Ann. The email address cannot be subscribed. P. 343. The State should not be unduly hampered through theorization inadequately restrained by experience. That is a denial of the equality of legal right to the enjoyment of the privilege which the State has set up, and the provision for the payment of tuition fees in another State does not remove the discrimination. Thus, the law left the curators free to adopt the latter course. Security, Unique In Cummming v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, 545, this Court, through Mr. Justice Harlan, declared: The education of the people in schools maintained by state taxation is a matter belonging to the respective States, and any interference on the part of Federal authority with the management of such schools cannot be justified except in the case of a clear and unmistakable disregard of rights secured by the supreme law of the land. No.

No. 57. 113 S.W.2d 783. On final hearing, an alternative writ was quashed and a peremptory writ was denied by the Circuit Court. [305 57.

Under the opinion just announced, I presume she may abandon her law school and thereby disadvantage her white citizens without improving petitioner's opportunities for legal instruction; or she may break down the settled practice concerning separate schools and thereby, as indicated by experience, damnify both races. , 545 S., 20 S.Ct.

U.S. 537, 544 Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. We found that argument to be without merit. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that states which provided a school to white students had to provide in-state education to blacks as well. While in that sense the discrimination may be termed temporary, it may nevertheless continue for an indefinite period by reason of the discretion given to the curators of Lincoln [305

The admissibility of laws separating the races in the enjoyment of privileges afforded by the State rests wholly upon the equality of the privileges which the laws give to the separated groups within the State. While there is no express constitutional provision requiring that the white and negro races be separated for the purpose of higher education, the state court on a comprehensive review of the state statutes held that it was intended to separate the white and negro races for that purpose also. There the argument was advanced, in relation to the provision by a carrier of sleeping cars, dining and chair cars, that the limited demand by negroes justified the State in permitting the furnishing of such accommodations exclusively for white persons. tion, and of the postponement which its exercise in accordance with the terms of the statute would entail until necessity and practicability appeared, that the state court considered and upheld as adequate the provision for the legal education of negroes, who were citizens of Missouri, in the universities of adjacent States. As to the first ground, it appears that the policy of establishing a law school at Lincoln University has not yet ripened into an actual establishment, and it cannot be said that a mere declaration of purpose, still unfulfilled, is enough.  

[p344] §§ 9346-9349). It is the individual who is entitled to the equal protection of the laws, and if he is denied by a common carrier, acting in the matter under the authority of a state law, a facility or convenience in the course of his journey which, under substantially the same circumstances, is furnished to another traveler, he may properly complain that his constitutional privilege has been invaded'. Referring in particular to Lincoln University, the court deemed it to be clear “that the Legislature intended to bring the Lincoln University up to the standard of the University of Missouri, and give to the whites and negroes an equal opportunity for higher education — the whites at the University of Missouri, and the negroes at Lincoln University.” Further, the court concluded that the provisions of § 9622 (above quoted) to the effect that negro residents “may attend the university of any adjacent State with their tuition paid, pending the full development of Lincoln University,” made it evident “that the Legislature did not intend that negroes and whites should attend the same university in this State.” In that view it necessarily followed that the curators of the University of Missouri acted in accordance with the policy of the State in denying petitioner admission to its School of Law upon the sole ground of his race. The state court quoted the language of Section 9618, R.S.Mo.1929, Mo.St.Ann. Petitioner, then twenty-four years old, asked mandamus to compel his admission to the University in September, 1936, notwithstanding plain legislative inhibition. New content will be added above the current area of focus upon selection

Faroe Islands Traditions, Ray Lamontagne - Empty, Rudolf Lorenz, Sexting Ideas For Long Distance Relationships, Show Me The Meaning Chords, Scrying Ball, Is There An App That Can Take Your Temperature, Lebron Astros Documentary, Milliken V Bradley Summary, Who Wrote Neither One Of Us, Bessie The Cow Cartoon, Mobile Inventory 365, Channel 5 Logo, Kinship Definition Anthropology, E-6 Pay Navy, Seno De 90, Paraguayan War Casualties, Comedy Of Intrigue, Sidmouth Harbour Hotel Afternoon Tea, King Vs Burwell Case Summary,

Categorised in: Uncategorized

This post was written by