CASE BRIEF-布朗诉托皮卡教育局案

Facts:

This case is a consolidation of several different cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. Several black children (through their legal representatives, Ps) sought admission to public schools that required or permitted segregation based on race. The plaintiffs alleged that segregation was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.In all but one case, a three judge federal district court cited Plessy v. Ferguson in denying relief under the “separate but equal” doctrine. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs contended that segregated schools were not and could not be made equal and that they were therefore deprived of equal protection of the laws.

这种情况下是一个整合的几种不同情况下来自堪萨斯州,南卡罗来纳州,弗吉尼亚州和特拉华州。几个黑人孩子(通过他们的法定代理人,Ps)寻求进入公立学校要求或允许基于种族隔离。原告声称,种族隔离是违反宪法的平等保护条款下《第十四条修正案》。在一个案例中,一个三个联邦地区法院法官引用了普莱西诉弗格森否认“隔离但平等”原则下救援。上诉到最高法院,原告主张种族隔离学校没有和不平等,因此,他们剥夺了法律的平等保护。

Issue:

Is the race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal” public schools constitutional?种族隔离的孩子进入公立学校“隔离但平等”的符合宪法吗?

Holding (Warren):

No. The race-based segregation of children into “separate but equal” public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is unconstitutional.不。种族隔离的孩子成“隔离但平等”公立学校违反《第十四条修正案》的平等保护条款,是违宪的。

Segregation of children in the public schools solely on the basis of race denies to black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the physical facilities and other may be equal. Education in public schools is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

种族隔离的孩子在公立学校完全基于种族否认黑人孩子平等保护的法律担保的《第十四条修正案》,虽然物理设施和其他可能是平等的。教育在公立学校是正确的,必须向所有人提供平等的条件Reasons：

The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the role of public education in American life today. The separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, which applied to transportation, has no place in the field of public education.

Separating black children from others solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.

问题提出了在这些情况下必须确定不是在现有条件的基础上采用《第十四条修正案》时,但是根据今天在美国生活公共教育的作用。隔离但平等原则采用普莱西诉弗格森案中,应用于交通,在公共教育领域。

别人的黑人孩子仅仅因为种族分离产生一种自卑的感觉,他们在社会的地位,可能影响他们的心灵和思想的方式不可能永远无法实现。

The impact of segregation is greater when it has the sanction of law. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law tends to impede the educational and mental development of black children and deprives them of some of the benefits they would receive in an integrated school system. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority and any language to the contrary in Plessy v. Ferguson is rejected.

隔离的影响是更大的法律的制裁。自卑感会影响孩子学习的动力种族隔离的法律制裁往往阻碍了教育和心理发展的黑人孩子,剥夺了他们的一些好处,他们将获得在一个集成的学校系统。无论心理知识的程度在普莱西诉弗格森,这个发现是现代权威和充分支持的任何语言相反在普莱西诉弗格森拒绝。Policy:

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

所有上诉到最高法院的种族隔离争议的法律都被判决为违宪。