Boyer v. Garrett

Fourth Circuit

Boyer v. Garrett

183 F.2d 582, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2983

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 17, 1950

Docket6113

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 183 F.2d 582 (Boyer v. Garrett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyer v. Garrett, 183 F.2d 582, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2983 (4th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in an action instituted under the Civil Rights Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ .43 and 47, against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and the members of the Board of Recreation and Parks of that city. Its purpose is to enjoin the enforcement of a rule officially adopted providing for the segregation of races in athletic activities in the public parks and playgrounds subj ect to the control of the Boárd and to recover damages alleged to have been sustained because of the enforcement of the rule. The parties entered into a stipulation that for the purposes of this case no contention was made that the facilities and services furnished the different races were not substantially equal. The contention of plaintiffs is that, notwithstanding this equality of treatment, the rule providing for segregation is violative of the provisions of the federal Constitution. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the authority of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256; and the principal argument made on appeal is that the authority of Plessy v. Ferguson has been so weakened by subsequent decisions that we should no longer consider it as binding. We do not think, however, that we are at liberty thus to disregard a decision of the Supreme Court which that court has not seen fit to overrule and which it expressly refrained from reexamining, although urged to do so, in the very recent case of Sweatt v. Painter, 70 S.Ct. 848. It is for the Supreme Court, not us, to overrule its decisions or to hold them outmoded.

We need not consider arguments based on the 1st Amendment oí the Charter of the United Nations. The 1st Amendment manifestly has no relation to athletic contests, and there is nothing in the Charter of the United Nations which, if applicable here, is of broader scope than the provisions of the 14th Amendment in forbidding racial discrimination.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in an action instituted under the Civil Rights Act, 8 U.S.C.A. §§ .43 and 47, against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and the members of the Board of Recreation and Parks of that city. Its purpose is to enjoin the enforcement of a rule officially adopted providing for the segregation of races in athletic activities in the public parks and playgrounds subj ect to the control of the Boárd and to recover damages alleged to have been sustained because of the enforcement of the rule. The parties entered into a stipulation that for the purposes of this case no contention was made that the facilities and services furnished the different races were not substantially equal. The contention of plaintiffs is that, notwithstanding this equality of treatment, the rule providing for segregation is violative of the provisions of the federal Constitution. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the authority of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256; and the principal argument made on appeal is that the authority of Plessy v. Ferguson has been so weakened by subsequent decisions that we should no longer consider it as binding. We do not think, however, that we are at liberty thus to disregard a decision of the Supreme Court which that court has not seen fit to overrule and which it expressly refrained from reexamining, although urged to do so, in the very recent case of Sweatt v. Painter, 70 S.Ct. 848. It is for the Supreme Court, not us, to overrule its decisions or to hold them outmoded.

We need not consider arguments based on the 1st Amendment oí the Charter of the United Nations. The 1st Amendment manifestly has no relation to athletic contests, and there is nothing in the Charter of the United Nations which, if applicable here, is of broader scope than the provisions of the 14th Amendment in forbidding racial discrimination.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 F.2d 582, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 2983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyer-v-garrett-ca4-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack