View source for Bolling v. Sharpe

{{Use American English|date=September 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=June 2013}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Bolling v. Sharpe
  |ArgueDateA=December 10
  |ArgueDateB=11
  |ArgueYear=1952
  |ReargueDateA=December 8
  |ReargueDateB=9
  |ReargueYear=1953
  |DecideDate=May 17
  |DecideYear=1954
  |FullName=Spottswood Thomas Bolling, et al., Petitioners, v. C. Melvin Sharpe, President of the District of Columbia Board of Education, et al.
  |ParallelCitations=74 S. Ct. 693; 98 [[L. Ed.]] 884; 1954 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 2095; 53 Ohio Op. 331
  |USVol=347
  |USPage=497
  |Prior=''[[Certiorari]]'' to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
  |Majority=Warren
  |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
  |LawsApplied=[[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. V]]
}}

'''''Bolling v. Sharpe''''', 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark]] [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] [[Legal case|case]] in which the Court held that the Constitution prohibits [[School segregation in the United States|segregated public schools]] in the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]]. Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'', ''Bolling'' was reargued on December 8–9, 1953, and was unanimously decided on May 17, 1954, the same day as ''Brown''. The ''Bolling'' decision was supplemented in 1955 with the second ''Brown'' opinion, which ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed". In ''Bolling'', the Court did not address school desegregation in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment's [[Equal Protection Clause]], which applies only to the states, but rather held that school segregation was unconstitutional under the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. The Court observed that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution lacked an Equal Protection Clause, as in the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. However, the Court held that the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive, establishing the [[reverse incorporation]] doctrine.

==Background==

In ''Carr v. Corning'' (1950), the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals]] (with Judges [[Bennett Champ Clark]], [[Henry White Edgerton]], and [[E. Barrett Prettyman]] presiding) affirmed a ruling of the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia|District of Columbia U.S. District Court]] that upheld school segregation in the District citing seven laws passed by Congress from 1862 through 1874 that had segregated the [[District of Columbia Public Schools]].{{sfn|Primus|2004|page=985}}<ref name="Carr v. Corning">{{cite court|litigants=Carr v. Corning|reporter=[[Federal Reporter|F.2d]]|vol=182|opinion=14|court=D.C. Cir.|date=1950|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/182/14/73298/|access-date=June 22, 2023}}</ref> Under [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress|Article I, Section VIII of the U.S. Constitution]], "Congress shall have the power ... [[District of Columbia home rule|[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District]] ... as may, by Cession of particular States... become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for ... needful buildings".<ref>{{cite book|title=The Federalist Papers|editor-first=Clinton|editor-last=Rossiter|editor-link=Clinton Rossiter|publisher=[[New American Library|Signet Classics]]|page=548|year=2003|isbn=9780451528810|title-link=The Federalist Papers}}</ref> On April 16, 1862, President [[Abraham Lincoln]] signed into law the [[District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act]] passed by the [[37th United States Congress]] that ended [[slavery in the District of Columbia]].<ref>{{USStat|12|376}}, Session 2, "Chap. LIV.—An Act for the Release of certain Persons held to Service or Labor in the District of Columbia".</ref>

On May 20, 1862, Lincoln signed into law the Washington County Public Primary Schools Act which required that a special property tax be levied on all taxable property owned by non-white persons in [[Washington County, D.C.|Washington County]] "for the purpose of initiating a system of education of colored children in said county".<ref name="Carr v. Corning" /><ref>{{USStat|12|394}}, Session 2, "Chap. LXXVII.—An Act to provide for the Public Instruction of Youth in Primary Schools throughout the County of Washington, in the District of Columbia, without the Limits of the Cities of Washington and Georgetown", Section 35.</ref> The next day, Lincoln signed the Georgetown and Washington Cities Colored Children Education Act into law that required the municipal governments of [[Georgetown (Washington, D.C.)|Georgetown]] and [[Washington, D.C.|Washington City]] to deposit 10 percent of the property tax revenue collected from non-white property owners into separate funds to be "appropriated for the purpose of initiating a system of primary schools for the education of colored children residing in said cities" under the control of the [[Board of directors|boards of trustees]] of the public schools in Georgetown and Washington City, and that the boards of trustees "shall possess all the powers, exercise the same functions, and have the same supervision over the schools provided for in this act as are now exercised by them over the public schools now existing in said cities".<ref name="Carr v. Corning" /><ref>{{USStat|12|407}}, Session 2, "Chap. LXXXIII.—An Act providing for the Education of Colored Children in the Cities of Washington and Georgetown, District of Columbia, and for other Purposes", Sections 1, 2, and 3.</ref>

However, on July 11, 1862, Lincoln signed the Georgetown and Washington Cities Colored Children Schools Act into law that created a separate board of trustees for non-white schools in Georgetown and Washington City who would "possess all the powers and perform all the duties conferred upon and required of the trustees of public schools in the said cities".<ref name="Carr v. Corning" /><ref>{{USStat|12|537}}, Session 2, "Chap. CLI.—An Act relating to Schools for the Education of Colored Children in the Cities of Washington and Georgetown, in the District of Columbia".</ref> On June 25, 1864, Lincoln signed into law the Washington County Public Schools Act passed by the [[38th United States Congress]] that permitted "any white resident of said county shall be privileged to place his or her child or ward, at any one of the schools provided for the education of white children in said county he or she may think proper to select … and any colored resident shall have the same rights with respect to colored schools", and repealed the special property tax on non-white property owners in Georgetown and Washington City to fund non-white schools and instead required that the municipal governments of Georgetown and Washington City to appropriate from the general funds of their schools districts funding to non-white schools proportionate to the percentage of the enrollment in the districts non-white students constituted.<ref name="Carr v. Corning" /><ref>{{USStat|13|187}}, Session 1, "Chap. CLVI.—An Act to provide for the Public Instruction of Youth in the County of Washington, District of Columbia, and for other Purposes", Sections 16 and 18.</ref>

On July 23, 1866, President [[Andrew Johnson]] signed into law the District of Columbia Public Schools Act passed by the [[39th United States Congress]] that provided that the Washington County Public Schools Act be construed to "require the cities of Washington and Georgetown to pay over to the trustees of colored schools" the funding required under Section 18 of the Washington County Public Schools Act.<ref name="Carr v. Corning" /><ref>{{USStat|14|216}}, Session 1, "Chap. CCXVII.—An Act relating to Public Schools in the District of Columbia".</ref> On July 28, 1866, Johnson signed the Washington City Colored Schools Lots Donation Act into law that required the [[Federal buildings in the United States|Public Buildings Commissioner]] to "grant and convey to the trustees of colored schools for the cities of Washington and Georgetown … for the sole use of schools for colored children" specific [[land lot]]s in Washington City.<ref name="Carr v. Corning" /><ref>{{USStat|14|343}}, Session 1, "Chap. CCCVIII.—An Act donating certain Lots in the City of Washington for Schools for Colored Children in the District of Columbia".</ref> On June 22, 1874, President [[Ulysses S. Grant]] signed into law the [[Revised Statutes of the United States|Revised Statutes of the United States Act]] passed by the [[43rd United States Congress]] that provided for the revision and consolidation of all federal statutes related to the District of Columbia,<ref name="Carr v. Corning" /><ref>{{USStat|18|1}}, Part 2, Session 1, "An Act to revise and consolidate the statutes of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, relating to the District of Columbia, in force on the first day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three".</ref> that retained Section 16 of the Washington County Public Schools Act, retained a separate board of trustees for non-white schools in Georgetown and Washington City, and required the appointment of a separate superintendent for non-white schools.<ref name="Carr v. Corning" /><ref>{{USStat|18|33}}, Part 2, Session 1, "Chapter 12. Public Schools", Sections 282, 294, and 304.</ref>

Beginning in late 1941, a group of parents from the [[Anacostia]] neighborhood of Washington, D.C., calling themselves the Consolidated Parents Group, petitioned the Board of Education of the District of Columbia to open the nearly-completed [[John Philip Sousa Junior High School|John Philip Sousa Junior High]] as an integrated school. The school board denied the petition and the school opened, admitting only whites. On September 11, 1950, [[Gardner Bishop]], Nicholas Stabile and the Consolidated Parents Group attempted to get eleven African-American students (including the case's plaintiff, '''Spottswood Bolling''') admitted to the school, but were refused entry by the school's principal.

[[James Nabrit Jr.]], a professor of law at [[Howard University School of Law]], a historically black university, filed suit in 1951 on behalf of Bolling and the other students in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking assistance in the students' admission.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/4-five/washington-dc-2.html|title=Washington, D.C.: A Challenge to Jim Crow in the Nation's Capital |website=Smithsonian National Museum of American History|language=en-us|access-date=2020-07-13}}</ref><ref name=CUA>{{Cite web|url=https://libguides.law.cua.edu/exhibits/bolling|title=Bolling v. Sharpe|website=The Catholic University of America, Judge Kathryn J. Dufour Law Library|language=en-us|access-date=2020-07-13|archive-date=July 16, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200716031330/https://libguides.law.cua.edu/exhibits/bolling|url-status=dead}}</ref> After the court dismissed the claim, the case was granted a [[writ of certiorari]] by the Supreme Court in 1952.<ref name=CUA /> Howard law professor [[George Edward Chalmer Hayes|George E. C. Hayes]] worked with Nabrit on the oral argument for the Supreme Court hearing.<ref name=CUA /> While Nabrit's argument in ''Bolling'' rested on the unconstitutionality of segregation, the much more famous ''Brown v. Board of Education'' (decided on the same day) argued that the idea of 'separate but equal' facilities sanctioned by ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'', 163 U.S. 537 (1896) was a fallacy as the facilities for black students were woefully inadequate.

==Decision==
The Court, led by newly confirmed Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]], decided unanimously in favor of the plaintiffs.<ref name="Bolling v. Sharpe p. 499">{{ussc|name=Bolling v. Sharpe|volume=347|page=497|pin=499|year=1954}}</ref> In his opinion, Justice Warren noted that while the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|14th Amendment]], whose [[Equal Protection Clause]] was cited in ''Brown'' in order to declare segregation unconstitutional, does not apply in the District of Columbia, the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] did apply.<ref name="Bolling v. Sharpe p. 499" /> While the Fifth Amendment lacks an equal protection clause, Warren held that "the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive."<ref name="Bolling v. Sharpe p. 499" /> While equal protection is a more explicit safeguard against discrimination, the Court stated that "discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process."<ref name="Bolling v. Sharpe p. 499" /> Referring to the technicalities raised by the case's location in the District of Columbia, the Court held that, in light of their decision in ''Brown'' that segregation in state public schools is prohibited by the Constitution, it would be "unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government".<ref name="Bolling v. Sharpe p. 500">{{ussc|name=Bolling v. Sharpe|volume=347|page=497|pin=500|year=1954}}</ref>

The Court concluded: "racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the 5th Amendment".<ref name="Bolling v. Sharpe p. 500" /> The Court restored both ''Bolling'' and ''Brown'' to the docket until they could reconvene to discuss how to effectively implement the decisions.<ref name="Bolling v. Sharpe p. 500" />

==Controversy==
Some scholars have argued that the Court's decision in ''Bolling'' should have been reached on other grounds. For example, Judge [[Michael W. McConnell]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]] wrote that Congress never "required that the schools of the District of Columbia be segregated".<ref>
{{cite book
 |editor=Balkin
 |author=McConnell, Michael
 |title=What Brown v. Board of Education should have said : the nation's top legal experts rewrite America's landmark civil rights decision
|url=https://archive.org/details/whatbrownvboardo00jmba
 |url-access=registration
 |access-date=May 15, 2008
 |year=2001
 |publisher=New York University Press
 |isbn=978-0-8147-9889-8
 |oclc=47721772
 |page=[https://archive.org/details/whatbrownvboardo00jmba/page/168 168]
}}
</ref>  According to that rationale, the segregation of schools in Washington D.C. was unauthorized and therefore illegal.

In a debate, law professors [[Cass Sunstein]] and [[Randy Barnett]] agreed that while the result was desirable, ''Bolling'' does not reconcile with the Constitution, with Barnett saying: "You are right to point out that the Supreme Court's decision in ''Bolling v. Sharpe'' is very difficult to reconcile with the text of the Constitution. For this reason, you know that among constitutional scholars of all stripes ''Bolling'' is one of the most controversial and difficult cases ever decided by the Court."<ref name="originalism debate">{{cite web | first=Randy | last=Barnett | author2=Sunstein, Cass | title=Constitution in Exile? | date=May 2, 2005 | work=Legal Affairs | url=http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cie0505.msp | access-date=October 27, 2008 | archive-date=March 3, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210303053853/http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cie0505.msp | url-status=dead }}</ref> Conversely, [[University of Michigan Law School]] professor [[Richard Primus]] has argued that the conventional wisdom among constitutional scholars is that ''Bolling'' was not wrongly decided or that the reverse incorporation doctrine is illegitimate, and instead both were "justified by the force of sheer normative necessity."{{sfn|Primus|2004|page=977}}

==See also==
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
*{{Cite journal |doi=10.2307/4099366 |last=Primus |first=Richard A. |author-link=Richard Primus |year=2004 |title=''Bolling'' Alone |journal=[[Columbia Law Review]] |volume=104 |issue=4 |pages=975–1041|jstor=4099366 }}

==External links==
*{{wikisource-inline|Bolling v. Sharpe|''Bolling v. Sharpe''}}
*{{Caselaw source
 | case=''Bolling v. Sharpe'', {{ussc|347|497|1954|el=no}}
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16234924501041992561
 | justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/497/
 | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/497
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep347/usrep347497/usrep347497.pdf
}}

{{US5thAmendment|dueprocess}}
{{Civil rights movement|state=collapsed}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bolling v. Sharpe}}
[[Category:African-American history of Washington, D.C.]]
[[Category:Civil rights movement case law]]
[[Category:United States equal protection case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court]]
[[Category:United States school desegregation case law]]
[[Category:1954 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Legal history of the District of Columbia]]
[[Category:United States due process case law]]