Dawson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
220 F.2d 386 (1955)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Racial segregation in public recreational facilities violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The reasoning of Brown v. Board of Education, which invalidated the 'separate but equal' doctrine in public education, extends to other state-operated public facilities.

Facts:

The State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore maintained and operated public beaches and bathhouses.
These public facilities were operated on a racially segregated basis, with separate areas designated for Black citizens and white citizens.
A group of Black citizens sought to use these public recreational facilities.
The public authorities, pursuant to their segregation policy, denied these citizens the right to use the facilities on the same basis as white citizens, solely because of their race.

Procedural Posture:

Black citizens (plaintiffs) filed actions in the U.S. District Court against the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore (defendants).
The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgments and injunctive relief to end racial segregation at public beaches and bathhouses.
The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' actions, citing precedent that upheld the 'separate but equal' doctrine.
The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the District Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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 the policy of racial segregation in public beaches and bathhouses violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, the policy of racial segregation in public beaches and bathhouses violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court's recent decisions, particularly Brown v. Board of Education, have invalidated the 'separate but equal' doctrine previously established in Plessy v. Ferguson. The court reasoned that the authority of prior cases permitting segregation in public recreation was 'swept away' by these subsequent Supreme Court rulings. The court held that if segregation is unconstitutional in the context of compulsory public education, it is certainly unconstitutional with respect to optional public recreational facilities. The court rejected the argument that segregation was a valid exercise of the state's police power to preserve public peace, noting that tangible equality of facilities is insufficient and that segregation itself generates a feeling of inferiority that cannot be constitutionally justified.

Analysis:

This decision is a significant early application of the principles established in Brown v. Board of Education to areas beyond public schooling. It confirmed that the invalidation of the 'separate but equal' doctrine was not confined to education but extended to other state-provided public accommodations and facilities. The case established a crucial precedent that was instrumental in the broader desegregation of public life, signaling that any form of state-mandated segregation in public spaces was now constitutionally suspect and likely to be struck down.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Dawson v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City (1955)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"