Opinion · 1961-04-17

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority

Racial refusal of service at a restaurant inside a public parking garage is treated as state action; Court reversed and blocked racially discriminatory leasing practices affecting public property.

Share

Updated 1961-04-17

Real-world impact

  • Stops racial discrimination by businesses operating on publicly leased property.
  • Requires private lessees on public property to follow the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Allows individuals denied service on public property to sue under equal protection.

Topics

racial segregationpublic property leasesequal protectionrestaurant discrimination

Summary

Background

A Black man went to the Eagle Coffee Shoppe, a restaurant inside a parking garage owned and run by the Wilmington Parking Authority, and was refused service because of his race. The Authority is a public agency created by the City of Wilmington to provide parking and to finance the facility by leasing commercial space. Eagle leased space for a long term, paid rent, made improvements, and the building was publicly owned, flew state and national flags, and served the public.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether Eagle’s refusal could be treated as action by the State. The Delaware Supreme Court had called Eagle purely private and therefore outside the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court disagreed. It said the Authority’s ownership, financial role, leases, public purpose, and the close interdependence between the restaurant and the public parking facility made the discriminatory refusal effectively state action. The Court therefore held the refusal violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Real world impact

Because the restaurant was operating as part of a publicly owned project, the Court said the lessee must follow the Fourteenth Amendment as if the requirement were written into the lease. That means private businesses operating on public property in similar circumstances cannot lawfully deny service on racial grounds. The ruling reversed the Delaware decision and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart wrote separately that the Delaware statute allowing a restaurateur to refuse service was itself unconstitutional. Justices Harlan and Frankfurter dissented, arguing the state court’s reasoning was unclear and the case should be returned for clarification before deciding broad constitutional questions.

Opinions in this case

  1. 1.Opinion 106208
  2. 2.Opinion 9422174
  3. 3.Opinion 9422177
  4. 4.Opinion 9422175
  5. 5.Opinion 9422176

Ask this case

Questions, answered

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:

  • “What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?”
  • “How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?”
  • “What are the practical implications of this ruling?”

Related Cases