Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.

Background

Sandra Adickes, a white school teacher from New York, went with six Black students to eat at the Kress store lunch counter in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, in August 1964. The students were served but Adickes was refused service and then arrested for vagrancy after leaving. She sued the store under the federal civil‑rights law (42 U.S.C. §1983), claiming she was denied service because she was a white person in the company of Black students and that the store conspired with local police. The trial court directed a verdict for the store on the custom claim and granted summary judgment on the conspiracy claim; the appeals court affirmed those rulings.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court first found summary judgment improper because the store failed to show the absence of any genuine factual dispute — for example, whether a policeman was in the store when service was refused. On the substantive claim the Court explained that a “custom or usage of [a] State” must have the force of law through persistent practices of state officials. The Court held that if Adickes proves the store refused service because of a state‑enforced custom of racial segregation in Hattiesburg restaurants, she can make out a §1983 equal‑protection claim. The Court also rejected requiring proof of identical practices throughout the whole state or limiting state enforcement proof to a single trespass statute.

Real world impact

The case is sent back for trial on both counts, so a jury must resolve the disputed facts. The ruling allows people denied service to pursue federal claims when business discrimination is shown to follow state‑backed segregation practices. This decision is not a final merits ruling; the outcome will depend on the evidence at trial.

Dissents or concurrances

Separate opinions highlighted disagreements: one Justice stressed that the jury should decide given the evidence, while a dissent argued that “custom” should reach broader community practice without proof of official enforcement.