Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1948 United States Supreme Court case
Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla.
Argued January 7–8, 1948
Decided January 12, 1948
Full case nameSipuel v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma, et al.
Citations332U.S.631 (more)
68 S. Ct. 299; 92L. Ed. 247; 1948U.S. LEXIS 2645
Case history
PriorJudgment for the State, District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, 199 Okla. 36; affirmed, (Supreme Court of Oklahoma 1946) 180P.2d 135;cert. granted,332 U.S. 814 (1947).
Holding
Colleges can not deny admittance based on race.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton
Case opinion
Per curiam
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
EnglishWikisource has original text related to this article:

Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631 (1948), is aper curiamUnited States Supreme Court decision involving racial segregation toward African Americans by theUniversity of Oklahoma and the application of theFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[1]

Background

[edit]

Ada Lois Sipuel (February 8, 1924 – October 18, 1995), born inChickasha, Oklahoma, was the daughter of a minister. Her brother planned to challengesegregationist policies of theUniversity of Oklahoma but went toHoward University Law School, inWashington, DC, to avoid delaying his career further by protracted litigation.

Ada Sipuel was willing to delay her legal career to challenge segregation. On January 14, 1946, she applied to the all-whiteUniversity of Oklahoma, then the only taxpayer-funded law school in Oklahoma. She was denied because of her race.

She then petitioned the District Court ofCleveland County, Oklahoma. Herwrit of mandamus was denied. TheOklahoma Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower district court (in 180 P.2d 135). The petitioners then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Decision

[edit]

Two years later, in 1948, the United States Supreme Court heard the petition on January 7 and 8th, which stated that the "petitioner is entitled to secure legal education afforded by a state institution." They continued, "The State must provide it for her in conformity with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other group." Citing the 1938 caseMissouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, a case in which "Lloyd Gaines, a negro, was refused admission to theSchool of Law of the University of Missouri".[2]

The petitioners, acting on behalf of Miss Sipuel, wereThurgood Marshall of New York City, and Amos Hall, ofTulsa (also on the brief Frank D. Reeves). The respondents, representing the defendants, the university and the State of Oklahoma, were Fred Hansen, ofOklahoma City, the First Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Maurice H. Merrill, ofNorman (also on the brief Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General). This was a landmark case in the early civil rights movement. The case reversedLee v. State of Mississippi, and was also a precursor forBrown v. Board of Education.[3]

Only four days after argument, on January 12, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Sipuel. The court ruled that the state of Oklahoma must provide instruction for Blacks equal to that of Whites, requiring the admission of qualified black students to previously all-white state law schools, reversing the Supreme Court of Oklahoma decision. In 1950, the Supreme Court again ruled unanimously inSweatt v. Painter, a case in which Herman Marion Sweatt was refused admission to theUniversity of Texas School of Law on the grounds that theTexas State Constitution prohibited integrated education.[4]

Aftermath

[edit]

According toSupreme Court Associate JusticeJohn Paul Stevens, who sat in the gallery and watched Marshall argue the case before the court on January 8, 1948, Marshall was "respectful, forceful and persuasive – so persuasive that on the following Monday – only four days after the argument – the Court unanimously ruled in Sipuel's favor." In addition, Ada Sipuel was "not only an excellent student, but was welcomed by her classmates who did not agree with the exclusionary policy that the State had unsuccessfully tried to defend."[5]

A garden, between Jacobson Hall and Carpenter Hall, on the campus of the University of Oklahoma, now stands in honor of the event.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla.,332 U.S.631 (1948).
  2. ^Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S.337 (1938).
  3. ^Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.483 (1954).
  4. ^Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S.629 (1950).
  5. ^Address to the American Bar Association – John Paul Stevens – August 6, 2005

External links

[edit]
Academics
Schools
Athletics
Facilities
Culture
Football
Basketball
Other sports
Campus
Student life
People
History
  • Established: 1890
  • Endowment: $1.65 billion
  • Students: 30,303
Economic substantive
due process
Abortion jurisprudence
Right to privacy
Litigation under
R.S.§ 1979 (42 U.S.C. 1983)
Other
Race
Sex
Sexual orientation
Alienage
Residency
Other
Other
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sipuel_v._Board_of_Regents_of_the_University_of_Oklahoma&oldid=1311346395"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp