Peterson v. City of Greenville
Headline: Sit-in protests by Black students reversed: Court struck down their trespass convictions because a city ordinance required segregated lunch counters, blocking local enforcement of segregation and protecting protesters from criminal punishment.
Holding: In Peterson v. City of Greenville, the Court reversed the trespass convictions because a city ordinance requiring segregation made state enforcement of the trespass law a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Stops local laws from being enforced to criminalize integrated lunch-counter sit-ins.
- Reverses convictions and frees protesters from trespass sentences in similar cases.
- Requires courts to treat municipal segregation laws as state action when enforced.
Summary
Background
Ten Black boys and girls went into an S. H. Kress store in Greenville, South Carolina, on August 9, 1960, and sat at the lunch counter asking to be served. The store manager turned off the lights, called police, announced the counter was closed, and the students were arrested under the State trespass law. Greenville had a local ordinance that required separate facilities for white and Black patrons at restaurants and counters.
Reasoning
The Court focused on whether the State had become involved in the private decision to exclude the students. The majority held that the city ordinance left no real private choice: it required segregation and the manager acted in line with that law. Because the criminal process was used to enforce the segregation required by the ordinance, the convictions violated the Fourteenth Amendment and could not stand. The Court therefore reversed the convictions in this case.
Real world impact
The ruling prevents municipalities from using their local segregation laws to support criminal trespass convictions against people protesting segregated service. It removes a tool that local officials and store managers had been able to use to keep protesters off lunch counters. The decision directly frees the petitioners from the fines or jail time imposed for that sit-in.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Harlan agreed with reversing the Greenville convictions but warned the Court should usually inquire whether an ordinance actually influenced a private proprietor’s choice. He joined the judgment here because the store manager admitted the ordinance and local customs guided his action.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
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?