Bolling v. Sharpe
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Current »

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
Opinoin: Warren (unanimous)

 Basic Info:
-companion case with Brown
-Washington, D.C. Segregation Case

Warren:
-5th Amendment lacks the "equal rotection clause present in 14
-standard reading in 1800s is that the 5th Amd is for criminal prosecution
-Court holds that segregation in D.C. is unconstitutional-- Equal Protection Clause and d5th amendment are not interchangeable, but they are at least similar
-If the restrictions must apply to the states, then it must apply to the Fed. too.

Quotes:

"...the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemmng from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive."

Even thought Equal Protection more explicitly refers to discrimination than Due Process, the Court states that, "discrimination may be so undjustifiable as to be violative of due process."

it would be, "unthinkable that the same Consitutution would impose a lesser duty onthe Federal Government."

"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." 

Labels
  • No labels