Bell v. Maryland

1964-06-22

Headline: Vacates and remands sit-in convictions of twelve Black students; lets Maryland courts reconsider after Baltimore and State laws ban race-based restaurant exclusion.

Holding: The Court vacated and reversed the Maryland convictions and remanded so the state court can reconsider them in light of newly enacted Baltimore and Maryland public-accommodations laws, avoiding federal constitutional rulings.

Real World Impact:

State court will reconsider and may dismiss convictions.
Restaurants face enforcement under new Maryland and Baltimore public-accommodations laws.
Supreme Court avoided a national ruling on sit-in constitutional claims.

Topics: racial segregation in restaurants, sit-in protests, public accommodations law, state court remand

Summary

Background

Twelve Black college students were arrested after a 1960 sit-in at Hooper’s restaurant in Baltimore when the restaurant’s staff refused to serve them because of their race. They were prosecuted under Maryland’s criminal trespass law and convicted; the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed those convictions and the students then asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

Reasoning

Before the Supreme Court decided the constitutional claims, Baltimore and Maryland adopted public-accommodations laws that make it illegal for restaurants to refuse service because of race. The majority explained that Maryland common-law practice generally requires dismissal of prosecutions when the legislature removes the criminality of the conduct while an appeal is still pending. The Court concluded the state saving clause probably would not preserve the old convictions and that it should not resolve federal constitutional questions that might be mooted by the state court applying the new statutes. For those reasons the Court vacated and reversed the convictions and sent the case back to the Maryland Court of Appeals to decide under current state law.

Real world impact

On remand the state court may dismiss the indictments and the students could have their convictions set aside because Maryland and Baltimore now reject race-based exclusion in restaurants. The Supreme Court did not make a national ruling on whether the Fourteenth Amendment itself forbids sit-in prosecutions, leaving that constitutional question unresolved in this case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas (joined in part by Justice Goldberg) would have decided the merits and reversed the convictions outright, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids state enforcement of segregation in public accommodations; Justice Black dissented, arguing the Fourteenth Amendment by itself does not compel private restaurants to serve everyone.