Bolling v. Sharpe
The Court ruled that segregating Black children in Washington, D.C.'s public schools violated the Fifth Amendment's promise of due process, even though that amendment has no equal protection clause like the one that applies to the states.
Decided the same day as Brown v. Board of Education, the ruling made clear that the federal government could not maintain segregated schools either, closing a gap that might otherwise have let Washington, D.C. keep segregation while the states could not.
“Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause.”
The Court's central holding that D.C. school segregation violates the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee.
How it got here: A District of Columbia trial court dismissed the families' complaint; the Supreme Court granted review before the Court of Appeals could rule, given the case's importance.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Black children in Washington, D.C. were turned away from a public school that admitted white children, solely because of their race. Their families sued in federal court, asking a judge to order the children's admission to the white school and challenging the district's segregated school system as unconstitutional.
The question before the Court
Could Washington, D.C. keep segregating Black and white children in public schools, even though the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection guarantee doesn't apply to the federal government?
Why it matters
Black children in the nation's capital gained the same right to attend integrated public schools that Brown v. Board of Education secured for children in the states. The ruling also established that unfair racial discrimination by the federal government itself can violate the Constitution's due process guarantee, not just its explicit equal protection guarantee against the states.
What changes now
The Court held that segregating Washington, D.C.'s public schools violated the Fifth Amendment, but it did not immediately order a remedy. Following the approach taken in Brown v. Board of Education, the case was sent back to the docket for further argument on how and how quickly desegregation should be carried out, questions the Court had separately posed to the parties.
What this does not decide
The Court decided that segregated public schools in Washington, D.C. violate due process, but it did not yet decide how or on what timeline the schools must be desegregated. Those implementation questions were left for further argument, paralleling the separate remedy phase in Brown v. Board of Education.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court noted that the Fifth Amendment, which governs the federal government and applies in Washington, D.C., has no equal protection clause like the Fourteenth Amendment that binds the states.
- Even so, the Court reasoned that the ideas of equal protection and due process both grow from the same American commitment to fairness, and unjustifiable discrimination can violate due process even without an explicit equal protection guarantee.
- Because racial classifications run against American traditions and are constitutionally suspect, the Court said they must be examined with special care rather than accepted at face value.
- The Court explained that the 'liberty' protected by due process is not limited to freedom from physical restraint but covers the full range of conduct a person should be free to pursue, unless a restriction serves a legitimate government purpose.
- Applying that principle, the Court found that segregating public school children by race served no proper government purpose, so it placed an arbitrary burden on Black children's liberty.
- Having just ruled that the Constitution bars the states from segregating public schools, the Court concluded it would be unthinkable for the Constitution to demand less of the federal government, so the District of Columbia's school segregation likewise violated due process.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Buchanan v. Warley (245 U. S. 60)
Relies on this earlier case as support that unreasonable racial discrimination can violate due process.
Reaffirms Gibson v. Mississippi (162 U. S. 565)
Cites this 1896 decision's principle that the Constitution forbids racial discrimination in civil and political rights.