Cumming v. Board of Education
175 U.S. 528 (1899)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state or local government's decision to provide a public high school for white children while not providing one for colored children does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if the decision is based on legitimate economic reasons and not on racial hostility.
Facts:
- The Board of Education of Richmond County, Georgia, collected taxes from all citizens, including the plaintiffs, who were colored taxpayers.
- The Board used a portion of these tax funds to maintain a high school exclusively for white children.
- The Board had previously operated a high school for approximately 60 colored children but suspended its operation.
- The Board stated its reason for the suspension was to reallocate funds to provide primary education for 300 younger colored children who otherwise had no access to schooling.
- After the suspension, no public high school was available for colored children in the county, though private institutions existed.
- The plaintiffs were taxpayers whose children were debarred from attending the publicly funded high school solely because of their race.
Procedural Posture:
- Cumming and other taxpayers filed a petition in the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia, against the Board of Education.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the Board from using tax funds to operate a high school for white children as long as no similar school was provided for colored children.
- The case was decided in favor of the Board of Education, and this judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
- The plaintiffs then brought the case to the United States Supreme Court on a writ of error, alleging the state's action violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a county board of education's decision to use public tax funds to support a high school for white students, while temporarily suspending a high school for colored students for economic reasons, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. A county board of education's decision to fund a high school for white students while suspending one for colored students does not violate the Equal Protection Clause when the decision is based on legitimate economic considerations rather than racial discrimination. The Court reasoned that the relief sought—an injunction to close the white high school—would not benefit colored children but would only harm white children by taking away their educational privileges. The Board's discretionary choice to prioritize primary education for a larger number of colored students (300) over high school education for a smaller number (60) was a reasonable judgment made in good faith and for economic reasons, not out of racial hostility. The management of public schools is fundamentally a state matter, and federal intervention is only justified in a 'clear and unmistakable disregard' of constitutional rights, which was not found in this case.
Analysis:
This decision effectively sanctioned de facto inequality under the 'separate but equal' doctrine established three years prior in Plessy v. Ferguson. By accepting the school board's economic justification at face value, the Court created a precedent that allowed states to provide unequal educational facilities for different races so long as a non-racial rationale could be articulated. It demonstrated the Court's extreme deference to local authorities in matters of education and race, significantly weakening the promise of equal protection in that context. This ruling is often cited as an early example of the Court's failure to enforce the Equal Protection Clause in the post-Reconstruction era, paving the way for decades of underfunded and inferior education for Black Americans.
Unlock the full brief for Cumming v. Board of Education