Jones v. Marva Theatres, Inc.

District Court, D. Maryland
180 F.Supp. 49 (1960)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A private entity's practice of racial discrimination constitutes state action violating the Fourteenth Amendment when it operates on public property leased from a government entity, particularly when the property serves a public function and the lease itself contemplates the discriminatory practice.

Facts:

The City of Frederick, Maryland, owns the City Opera House, which is located within the City Hall building and serves as a place of public assembly.
The City leased the Opera House to a private operator, Marva Theatres, Inc. (Marva), under a term from 1950 to 1960.
The lease agreement between the City and Marva included an exhibit describing existing facilities, which explicitly referenced a “colored box office” and “colored” toilet facilities.
The City of Frederick reserved the right to use the Opera House four days per year for its own purposes or to grant its use to others.
Marva enforced a policy of racial segregation, restricting Black patrons to the back rows of the balcony and reserving the main floor and front balcony for white patrons.
On or about March 10, 1958, the plaintiffs, who are Black, were denied admission to the main auditorium floor of the Opera House solely because of their race and were directed to the segregated balcony section.

Procedural Posture:

A group of Black plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court against the City of Frederick, Maryland, and its lessee, Marva Theatres, Inc.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction to end segregated seating and other discriminatory practices at the city-owned theater.
The court held a hearing on the matter and subsequently attempted to broker a settlement between the parties.
The plaintiffs agreed to a proposed settlement, but the defendant, Marva Theatres, Inc., refused to consent to any form of injunction.
Following the breakdown of settlement negotiations, the plaintiffs withdrew their offer and pressed the court for a final decree on their 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 private company's policy of racial segregation in a theater it leases from a city violate the Fourteenth Amendment when the theater is part of the City Hall building and the lease agreement references segregated facilities?

Opinions:

Majority - Thomsen, Chief Judge

Yes, a private company's policy of racial segregation in a theater it leases from a city violates the Fourteenth Amendment under these circumstances. The right to use public facilities without racial discrimination cannot be abridged by leasing the property to a private operator while the government retains ownership. The court reasoned that the Opera House is not surplus property but a place of public assembly and an integral part of City Hall. Citing precedents like Department of Conservation & Development v. Tate, the court found that the government's leasing of its property creates sufficient state action to trigger Fourteenth Amendment protections. This conclusion was further supported by the fact that the lease itself contemplated segregation by referencing separate 'colored' facilities, demonstrating a joinder in the enterprise between the City and the private lessee.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that a government entity cannot circumvent its Fourteenth Amendment obligations by leasing public property to a private operator. It clarifies that 'state action' can be found not only through explicit government mandates but also through the nature of the property and implicit approval within the lease agreement. The case demonstrates that the closer the relationship between the government and the private actor (the 'nexus'), and the more public the function of the property, the more likely a court is to find that the private discrimination is attributable to the state. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for municipalities to permit segregation in public facilities under the guise of private operation.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Jones v. Marva Theatres, Inc. (1960)

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