2

486 OCTOBER TERM, 1953.
Opinion of the Court. 347 U.S.

for the Congress of Industrial Organizations and by
Phineas Indritz for the American Veterans Committee,
Inc.

Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of
the Court.

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas,
South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. The are pre-
mised on different facts and different local conditions,
but a common legal question justified their consideration
together in this consolidated opinion.1

BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION 487
483 Opionion of the Court.

In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through
their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in
obtaining admission to the public schools of their com-
munity on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance,

¹ In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs
are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka.
They brought this action in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute which
permits, but does not require, cities of more than 15,000 population
to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students.
Kan. Gen. Stat ()72-1724 (1949). Pursuant to that authority, the
Topeka Board of Education elected to establish segregated elementary
schools. Other public schools in the community, however, are oper-
ated on a nonsegragated basis. The three-judge District Court, con-
vened under 28 U. S. C. {}2281 and 2284, found that segragation
in public education has a detrimental effect upon Negro children,
but denied relief on the ground that the Negro and white schools
were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation,
curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. 98 F. Supp. 797.
The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. {} 1253.

In the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, the plaintiffs are Negro
children of both elementary and high school age residing in Clarendon
County. They brought this action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to enjoin enforce-
ment of provision in the state constitution and statutory code which
require the segregation of Negros and whites in public schools.
S. C. Sonst., Art. XI, {}7; S. C. Code {}5377 (1942). The three-
judge District Court, convened under 28 U. S. C. {}2281 and 2284,
denied the requested relief. The court found that the Negro schools
were inferior to the white schools and ordered the defendants to begin
immediately to equalize the facilities. But the court sustained the
validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admis-
sion to the white schools during the equalization program. 98F.
Supp. 529. This Court vacated the District Court's judgment and
remanded the case for the purpose of obtaining the court's views
on an report filed by the defendants concerning the progress made in
the equalization program. 342 U. S. 350. On remand, the District
Court found that substantial equality had been achieved except for
buildings and that the defendants were proceeding to rectify this
inequality as well. 103 F. Supp. 920. The case is again here on
direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. {} 1253.

In the Virginia case, Davis v. County School Board, the plaintiffs
are Negro childgre of high school age residing in Prince Edward
County. They brought this action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin enforcement of
provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require
the segration of Negroes and whites in public schools. Va. Const.,
{} 140; Va. Code {}22-221 (1950). The three-judge District Court,
convened under 28 U.S. c> {} 2281 and 2284, denied the requested
relief. The court found the Negro school inferior in physical
plant, curricula, and transportation, and ordeed the defendants
forthwith to provide substantially equal curricula and transportation
and to "proceed with all reasonable diligence and dispatch to remove"
the inequality in physical plant. But, and in the South Carolina case,
the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied
the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization
program. 103 F. Supp. 337. The case is here on direct appeal
under 28 U. S. C. {} 1253.

In the Delaware case, Gilbert v. Belton, the plaintiffs are Negro
children of both elementary and high school age residing in New
Castle County. They brought this action in the Delaware Court
of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state consti-
tution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negros
and whites in public schools. Del. Const., Art. X, {}2; Del. Rev.
Code {}2631 (1935). The Chancellor gave judgment for the plain-
tiffs and ordered their immediate admission to schools previously
attended only by white children, on the groun that the Negro schools
were inferior with respect to teacher training, pupil-teacher ration,
extracurricular activities, physical plant, and time and distance in-

288037 O--54---36