Westminster School Dist. of Orange County v. Mendez
161 F.2d 774 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The segregation of public school children of Mexican descent by state officials into separate schools, when not explicitly authorized by state law, is an arbitrary and discriminatory action taken under the color of law that violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- School officials in several school districts in Orange County, California, adopted and enforced a common policy of segregating students of Mexican descent.
- Pursuant to this policy, students of Mexican descent were required to attend schools designated solely for them.
- The petitioners, who were U.S. citizen children of Mexican descent, were otherwise fully qualified to be admitted to the public schools within their districts.
- Petitioners were denied admission to the schools attended by other children solely because of their Mexican ancestry.
- The petitioners, through their fathers, objected to the segregation and demanded admission to the non-segregated schools, but were refused.
- At the time, California state law did not authorize the segregation of students of Mexican descent, although it did permit segregation for children of certain Asian and Native American ancestries.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners, minor children of Mexican descent, filed a class-action petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against several Orange County school officials.
- Respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The district court denied the respondents' motion to dismiss.
- After a trial on the merits, the district court found that the segregation was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of the petitioners' constitutional rights.
- The district court entered a judgment enjoining the respondent school officials from continuing the segregation practices.
- The respondents, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 a public school district's policy of segregating students of Mexican descent into separate schools, without specific authorization from state law, violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, Circuit Judge
Yes, a public school district's policy of segregating students of Mexican descent without authorization from state law violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The school officials' actions, though contrary to California law, were performed 'under color of state law' because they misused the power and authority vested in them by the state. The Fourteenth Amendment is violated when individuals are deprived of a federal right by such action. This case is distinguishable from precedents upholding 'separate but equal' because those cases involved segregation mandated by specific state legislation, whereas the segregation here is an administrative action without legislative support and in direct conflict with state law. By enforcing segregation contrary to California law, the officials deprived the petitioners of their liberty and property without due process and denied them the equal protection of the laws.
Concurring - Denman, Circuit Judge
Yes, the segregation policy is unconstitutional, and the reasoning should emphasize the element of intentional discrimination. While the majority is correct, its reasoning should be grounded in the precedent of Snowden v. Hughes, which establishes that a violation of the Equal Protection clause requires an 'intentional or purposeful discrimination' against a particular class. Here, the school officials' regulation is discriminatory on its face, and their intent to discriminate is openly proclaimed. Furthermore, the segregation fails to provide equal facilities in practice; placing English-speaking children in a classroom where the teacher's time is diverted to teaching English to non-native speakers provides an inferior educational environment. This discriminatory action sets a dangerous precedent and may even warrant criminal investigation under federal civil rights statutes.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant precursor to Brown v. Board of Education, marking one of the first successful federal court challenges to school segregation. The court strategically invalidated the segregation not by overturning the 'separate but equal' doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, but on the narrower grounds that the segregation was not authorized by state law and was therefore arbitrary. This approach opened a new avenue for civil rights litigation by establishing that state officials' actions contrary to state law could still constitute a federal constitutional violation, influencing future legal strategies that ultimately led to the desegregation of all public schools.
