Drews v. Maryland

1965-06-07

Headline: Interracial group arrested at a segregated amusement park: Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied review, leaving disorderly-conduct convictions and civil-rights questions unresolved.

Holding: The Court granted the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and, treating the filings as a petition for certiorari, denied certiorari, leaving the state convictions intact.

Real World Impact:

Leaves state disorderly-conduct convictions in place for the individuals involved.
Keeps open whether the Civil Rights Act protected these peaceful refusals to leave.
Does not resolve whether the park guard acted as a state officer in the arrests.

Topics: racial segregation, public accommodations, civil rights, criminal convictions

Summary

Background

Five people—two Black individuals and three white individuals—went to Gwynn Oak Park on September 6, 1959, when the park was celebrating. A park guard told the Black visitors they had to leave because the park was "closed to colored." The group refused to go, police were summoned, a hostile crowd gathered, and four of the five were arrested and later charged under a Maryland disorderly-conduct law. They waived a jury, were convicted, fined, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. This Court earlier vacated and remanded, but after the state court again upheld the convictions the present proceedings reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s per curiam order granted the motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and treated the appeal papers as a petition for review, which it denied; the Court did not decide the constitutional or civil‑rights questions raised. The practical outcome is that the state convictions remain in effect because the high Court declined to review them. The Court’s brief action did not resolve whether the arrests or the convictions were constitutional or whether the Civil Rights Act of 1964 affected the pending convictions.

Real world impact

For the four individuals involved, the convictions remain in place after the Court’s dismissal and denial of review. More broadly, the decision leaves unanswered whether peaceful refusal to leave a segregated place of public accommodation is protected under federal law, and whether a private guard’s actions were state action. Because the Court denied review rather than deciding the merits, these important legal questions remain open.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Warren, joined by Justice Douglas, dissented from the denial of review. He argued the convictions raise serious constitutional doubts, that the Civil Rights Act likely abated the convictions, and that the record suggests the arrests and convictions should be reexamined on the merits.