Share
VIDEOS 1 TO 50
#41 Bolling v Sharpe
#41 Bolling v Sharpe
Published: 2016/04/04
Channel: Jennifer Ramirez
Supreme Court Cases For Dummies: US History Review
Supreme Court Cases For Dummies: US History Review
Published: 2012/03/16
Channel: Keith Hughes
ConLaw - Class 17 - Equal Protection and Desegregation
ConLaw - Class 17 - Equal Protection and Desegregation
Published: 2015/10/15
Channel: Josh Blackman
The Warren Court: Landmark Supreme Court Cases, Legacy, Law, Affect on American Society (1998)
The Warren Court: Landmark Supreme Court Cases, Legacy, Law, Affect on American Society (1998)
Published: 2015/09/25
Channel: Way Back
Class 15 - 3/2/17  Equal Protection and Desegregation
Class 15 - 3/2/17 Equal Protection and Desegregation
Published: 2017/03/02
Channel: Josh Blackman
Stephen A. Smith Reacts To LaVar Ball vs. Kyrie Irving
Stephen A. Smith Reacts To LaVar Ball vs. Kyrie Irving
Published: 2017/05/23
Channel: Steven Smith
ConLaw Class 17 – Equal Protection and Desegregation
ConLaw Class 17 – Equal Protection and Desegregation
Published: 2015/03/12
Channel: Josh Blackman
ConLaw Class 16 - Equal Protection and Desegregation
ConLaw Class 16 - Equal Protection and Desegregation
Published: 2014/03/12
Channel: Josh Blackman
Stephen A. Smith vs. LaVar Ball Full Debate!!!
Stephen A. Smith vs. LaVar Ball Full Debate!!!
Published: 2017/03/23
Channel: Ayo_tae22
ConLaw Class 18 -  Equal Protection and Desegregation
ConLaw Class 18 - Equal Protection and Desegregation
Published: 2016/03/22
Channel: Josh Blackman
Briggs v Elliott
Briggs v Elliott
Published: 2016/02/23
Channel: THAT_Black EJ1
Delgado v. Bastrop ISD
Delgado v. Bastrop ISD
Published: 2017/05/02
Channel: Aldos
Rev. Joseph DeLaine and the Briggs v. Elliott Case 1950
Rev. Joseph DeLaine and the Briggs v. Elliott Case 1950
Published: 2016/08/14
Channel: John Singletary Ramon Roane
Humanitini 9   Laboratory of Democracy
Humanitini 9 Laboratory of Democracy
Published: 2016/09/02
Channel: HumanitiesDC
Matthew Diaz Case Study
Matthew Diaz Case Study
Published: 2014/03/26
Channel: kelsey senior
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Published: 2014/07/19
Channel: Audiopedia
Meyer V Nebraska
Meyer V Nebraska
Published: 2016/09/22
Channel: Jonathan Burton
Lois Lerner Pleads the Fiiif! The Fifth Amendment #TMS REMIX
Lois Lerner Pleads the Fiiif! The Fifth Amendment #TMS REMIX
Published: 2014/03/08
Channel: The Media Speaks
Sturges v. Crowninshield - The Hollywood Version
Sturges v. Crowninshield - The Hollywood Version
Published: 2011/11/21
Channel: Zach Ludens
STEPHEN A SMITH & SKIP BLAYLESS ON CLEVELAND GAME 4 WIN
STEPHEN A SMITH & SKIP BLAYLESS ON CLEVELAND GAME 4 WIN
Published: 2017/06/10
Channel: We The Gods
Santobello VS New York by Kaela Croushorn
Santobello VS New York by Kaela Croushorn
Published: 2013/11/27
Channel: Brian Briley
Protesting Colin Kaepernick
Protesting Colin Kaepernick's Anthem Protest On Madden 17 - Playing National Anthem Funny Reactions
Published: 2016/09/12
Channel: Weregonnalose
Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros - Home (Official Video)
Edward Sharpe & The Magnetic Zeros - Home (Official Video)
Published: 2010/05/17
Channel: Rough Trade Records
Stephen A. Smith Responds To Seahawks
Stephen A. Smith Responds To Seahawks' Michael Bennett Again | First Take | May 19, 2017
Published: 2017/05/19
Channel: ESPN
Remembering Harry Briggs
Remembering Harry Briggs
Published: 2016/08/18
Channel: WSPA 7News
Carter & Cody Promo 2: What
Carter & Cody Promo 2: What's Mine Is Mine
Published: 2016/03/31
Channel: VSharpe
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado: Oral Argument - October 11, 2016
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado: Oral Argument - October 11, 2016
Published: 2017/01/25
Channel: PuppyJusticeAutomated
First Take - Stephen A Smith goes CRAZY on Nelly after he rips Kobe Bryant
First Take - Stephen A Smith goes CRAZY on Nelly after he rips Kobe Bryant
Published: 2017/01/11
Channel: Jackson Niy
Eric Bolling & Jim Gray rip Colin Kaepernick for disrespecting National Anthem
Eric Bolling & Jim Gray rip Colin Kaepernick for disrespecting National Anthem
Published: 2016/09/03
Channel: KJRawX
Fox News: Eric Bolling FREAKS OUT About Colin Kaepernick Protest
Fox News: Eric Bolling FREAKS OUT About Colin Kaepernick Protest
Published: 2016/09/13
Channel: The Majority Report with Sam Seder
ESPN FIRST TAKE (4/24/2017) CHARLAMAGNE THAGOD (@CTHAGOD) VS STEPHEN A SMITH
ESPN FIRST TAKE (4/24/2017) CHARLAMAGNE THAGOD (@CTHAGOD) VS STEPHEN A SMITH
Published: 2017/04/27
Channel: hoang phan
Carter and Cody (Episode 2) "Feel Like Flirting"
Carter and Cody (Episode 2) "Feel Like Flirting"
Published: 2016/04/12
Channel: VSharpe
Nathaniel Briggs : Briggs vs Elliott
Nathaniel Briggs : Briggs vs Elliott
Published: 2017/03/23
Channel: Bates Middle School :Sumter SC
Santobello v New York
Santobello v New York
Published: 2013/11/29
Channel: Jaclyn Dunkirk
Bill O
Bill O'Reilly vs. Stephen A. Smith
Published: 2016/11/12
Channel: USAhistorywriter
Captain Tarazryach:Colin Kaepernick, National Anthem Patriotism
Captain Tarazryach:Colin Kaepernick, National Anthem Patriotism
Published: 2016/09/13
Channel: BLACKNEWS102
Carter and Cody Trailer
Carter and Cody Trailer
Published: 2016/04/03
Channel: VSharpe
6 Goldman v Weinberger
6 Goldman v Weinberger
Published: 2015/01/19
Channel: GOVT 2305, American National Government
06   Cooper v  Aaron 1958   Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1950 1960   United States Supreme Cour
06 Cooper v Aaron 1958 Civil Rights and Equal Protection 1950 1960 United States Supreme Cour
Published: 2016/05/17
Channel: hats0fyou
Carter & Cody Promo 1: In The Mourning
Carter & Cody Promo 1: In The Mourning
Published: 2016/03/30
Channel: VSharpe
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Published: 2017/03/10
Channel: Ava Walz
Complex Justice The Case of Missouri v  Jenkins download pdf
Complex Justice The Case of Missouri v Jenkins download pdf
Published: 2016/11/23
Channel: joan aldian
Conlaw1 Class 17 - Equal Protection and Desegregation
Conlaw1 Class 17 - Equal Protection and Desegregation
Published: 2015/10/14
Channel: Josh Blackman
NFL Protests Grow As Players Join Colin Kaepernick | MSNBC
NFL Protests Grow As Players Join Colin Kaepernick | MSNBC
Published: 2016/09/12
Channel: MSNBC
Kaepernick (Damn) - Revolution (prod by TheCratez)
Kaepernick (Damn) - Revolution (prod by TheCratez)
Published: 2016/09/13
Channel: Mikey Grady
Incorporation: The Bill of Rights & the States
Incorporation: The Bill of Rights & the States
Published: 2012/10/02
Channel: OU IACH
Rowland Martin- Colin Kaepernick Debate
Rowland Martin- Colin Kaepernick Debate
Published: 2016/09/04
Channel: admiralbrown79
McCoy Tyner - La Busca (The Search)
McCoy Tyner - La Busca (The Search)
Published: 2015/07/21
Channel: Brother John
A Step toward Brown v  Board of Education Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher and Her Fight to End Segregation
A Step toward Brown v Board of Education Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher and Her Fight to End Segregation
Published: 2016/10/13
Channel: Catherine H. Davis
Kaepernick Protest Continues To Spread: Entire Seattle High School Football Team Takes a Knee
Kaepernick Protest Continues To Spread: Entire Seattle High School Football Team Takes a Knee
Published: 2016/09/20
Channel: The Majority Report with Sam Seder
NEXT
GO TO RESULTS [51 .. 100]

WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Bolling v. Sharpe
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 10–11, 1952
Reargued December 8–9, 1953
Decided May 17, 1954
Full case name Spottswood Thomas Bolling, et al.,Petitioners, v. C. Melvin Sharpe, President of the District of Columbia Board of Education, et al.
Citations 347 U.S. 497 (more)
74 S. Ct. 693; 98 L. Ed. 884; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2095; 53 Ohio Op. 331
Prior history Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Holding
Racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial to Negro children of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinions
Majority Warren, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools. Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Bolling was reargued on December 8 and 9, 1953, and was unanimously decided on May 17, 1954, the same day as Brown. The Bolling decision was supplemented in 1955 with the second Brown opinion, which ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed." Bolling did not address school desegregation in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which applies only to the states, but held that school segregation was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Bolling, the Court observed that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution lacked an Equal Protection Clause, as in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court held, however, that the concepts of Equal Protection and Due Process are not mutually exclusive.

Background[edit]

Beginning in late 1949, a group of parents from the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington, D.C., calling themselves the Consolidated Parents Group, petitioned the Board of Education of the District of Columbia to open the nearly completed John Phillip Sousa Junior High as an integrated school. The school board denied the petition and the school opened, admitting only whites. On September 11, 1950, Gardner Bishop, Nicholas Stabile and the Consolidated Parents Group attempted to get eleven African-American students (including the case's plaintiff, Spottswood Bolling) admitted to the school, but were refused entry by the school's principal.

James Nabrit Jr., a professor of law at Howard School of Law, a historically black university, filed suit on behalf of Bolling and the other students in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking assistance in the students' admission. When the court dismissed the claim, the case was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court. While Nabrit's argument in Bolling rested on the unconstitutionality of segregation, the much more famous Brown v. Board of Education (decided on the same day) argued that the idea of 'separate but equal' facilities sanctioned by Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) was a fallacy as the facilities for black students were woefully inadequate. The lead attorney for Bolling was George E. C. Hayes.

The decision[edit]

The court, led by newly confirmed Chief Justice Earl Warren decided unanimously in favor of the plaintiffs. In his opinion, he noted that while the 14th Amendment, whose Equal Protection Clause was cited in Brown in order to declare segregation unconstitutional did not apply in the District of Columbia, the Fifth Amendment did apply. Thus setting up the theory of "reverse incorporation." While the 5th Amendment which was applicable in D.C. lacked an equal protection clause, Warren held that "the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive." While equal protection is a more explicit safeguard against discrimination, the Court stated that "discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process." Referring to the technicalities raised by the case's location in the District of Columbia, the Court held that, in light of their decision in Brown that segregation in state public schools is prohibited by the Constitution, it would be "unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government."

The Court concluded: "racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia is a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the 5th Amendment". The Court restored both Bolling and Brown to the docket until they could reconvene to discuss how to effectively implement the decisions.

Controversy[edit]

Some scholars have argued that the Court's decision in Bolling should have been reached on other grounds. For example, Judge Michael W. McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit wrote that Congress never "required that the schools of the District of Columbia be segregated."[1] According to that rationale, the segregation of schools in Washington D.C. was unauthorized and therefore illegal.

In a debate, law professors Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett agreed that while the result was desirable, Bolling does not reconcile with the Constitution, with Barnett saying: "You are right to point out that the Supreme Court's decision in Bolling v. Sharpe is very difficult to reconcile with the text of the Constitution. For this reason, you know that among constitutional scholars of all stripes Bolling is one of the most controversial and difficult cases ever decided by the Court."[2]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ McConnell, Michael (2001). Balkin, ed. What Brown v. Board of Education should have said : the nation's top legal experts rewrite America's landmark civil rights decision. New York University Press. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-8147-9889-8. OCLC 47721772. Retrieved May 15, 2008. 
  2. ^ Barnett, Randy; Sunstein, Cass (May 2, 2005). "Constitution in Exile?". Legal Affairs. Retrieved October 27, 2008. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Disclaimer

None of the audio/visual content is hosted on this site. All media is embedded from other sites such as GoogleVideo, Wikipedia, YouTube etc. Therefore, this site has no control over the copyright issues of the streaming media.

All issues concerning copyright violations should be aimed at the sites hosting the material. This site does not host any of the streaming media and the owner has not uploaded any of the material to the video hosting servers. Anyone can find the same content on Google Video or YouTube by themselves.

The owner of this site cannot know which documentaries are in public domain, which has been uploaded to e.g. YouTube by the owner and which has been uploaded without permission. The copyright owner must contact the source if he wants his material off the Internet completely.

Powered by YouTube
Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL and (CC) license