Brown v. Ramsey

185 F.2d 225, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3253
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 17, 1950
Docket14130_1
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 185 F.2d 225 (Brown v. Ramsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Ramsey, 185 F.2d 225, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3253 (8th Cir. 1950).

Opinion

RIDDICK, Circuit Judge.

The appellants in this action are Negro children of school age suing by their parents as next friends. The appellees are the members of the Board of Directors of the Fort Smith Special School District of Sebastian County, Arkansas, and the Superintendent of Schools for the District. The appellants instituted this action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, charging appellees with the practice and custom of denying Negro children educational opportunities and advantages substantially equal to those afforded white children of school age in Fort Smith in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The action is prosecuted for the benefit of appellants and all others similarly situated.

The appellants are twelve in number, six, students of the Lincoln School, the high school for Negro students in Fort Smith; and six students in the elementary schools. Their complaint charges the denial of equal educational facilities and opportunities for Negro students of both high school and elementary school age. But in the course of the trial appellants abandoned the charges of discrimination in schools below the high school level, and amended the complaint to allege that the appellees maintained a junior college for white students above high school age while denying junior college education to the Negro students. 1

With respect to the high school facilities offered Negro students in Fort Smith, the complaint alleged that they were “compelled to attend one high school, to wit, the Lincoln High School exclusively which school is more than fifty (50) years old and in an unsafe and unsanitary physical condition; that its facilities for educational *227 purposes are grossly inadequate and unequal in every respect to those provided for white children; that its curriculum is inadequate and unequal to that provided for white children; that it has inadequate and outmoded equipment for teaching shop work; that this machinery is unlike, dissimilar and unequal for educational purposes to the machinery used in schools for white children; that there are no facilities for teaching metal trades, auto mechanics, linotyping, printing, and other crafts and skills which are taught in high schools for white children; that there are no equal facilities for gymnasium; that the courses in home economics are inadequate, unlike and unequal to those provided for white children; that such courses as physics, geometry, business courses and romance languages which are taught in schools for white children are not taught at the school for Negro children;” and generally, the appellants allege that the sanitary and physical conditions of the school buildings for Negro children were inferior and unequal to those provided for white children, and in many respects inadequate, unhealthy, and unsafe.

Appellees’ answer put in issue every material allegation of the complaint.

At the conclusion of a trial on the merits, the court entered a final judgment dismissing the appellants’ complaint.

At the very threshold of this case, we are met with the question of the capacity of the appellants to maintain this action for either declaratory or injunctive relief. “It is the individual who is entitled to the equal protection of the laws * *. * * * It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant — not to others — which justifies judicial intervention” to protect rights under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. McCabe v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 235 U.S. 151, 161-162, 35 S.Ct. 69, 59 L.Ed. 169. “It is fundamental that these cases concern rights which are personal and present.” Sweatt v. Painter et al., 339 U.S. 629, 70 S.Ct. 848, 851; Mc-Laurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637, 70 S.Ct. 851; Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 351, 59 S.Ct. 232, 83 L.Ed. 208; Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 924, 926; Carter v. School Board of Arlington County, Virginia, 4 Cir., 182 F.2d 531, 535. It is the individual right of each appellant in this case presently existing to equality of treatment and opportunity in the public schools of Fort Smith which the Constitution protects. The individual appellant in this case is entitled to resort to the courts for the protection of a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment when and only when that 'right is denied. Courts do not listen to parties who complain of wrongs done to others but not to them. In such a case there is no justiciable controversy between the parties before the court. Cf. Cook v. Davis, 5 Cir., 178 F.2d 595, 599; Watson v. National Life & Trust Co., 8 Cir., 189 F. 872, 884. The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202, authorizes judgments in actual controversies, not advisory opinions in hypothetical cases.

It is obvious that the seven appellants enrolled in the elementary schools are not qualified to maintain an action to redress discrimination against students of high school or junior college age. Nor are students of high school age competent plaintiffs in suits charging discrimination against students of junior college age and qualifications. The appellants concede — a concession compelled by the overwhelming weight of the evidence — that Negro students in the elementary schools in the Fort Smith School District are afforded the same educational opportunities and facilities granted white children. None of the plaintiffs in this case are presently qualified to demand of the Fort Smith School District the educational advantages afforded by the junior college. And there is no evidence to show that any of the appellants, or for that matter any Negro citizen of Fort Smith, has ever asked for or been denied a junior college education. 2

*228 There remains for consideration only the question of discrimination at the high school level.

This action was instituted in December 1948. The amended complaint was filed July 9, 1949, and amended on November 10, 1949, to raise the issue concerning the Fort Smith Junior College. The trial of the case was concluded and final judgment entered on November 19, 1949, nearly one year after the filing of the original complaint. During the time between the filing and trial of this action the Directors of the District were busily engaged in the improvement of the District’s school system.

The total population of Fort Smith in 1949 was 50,724, made up of 46,742 whites and 3,982 Negroes, the Negro population being 7.8 per cent of the whole. As required by the law of Arkansas, the Fort Smith School District operates separate schools for Negro and white children.

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

Related

Goodyear Loan Company v. Little
269 A.2d 542 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1970)
Gebhart v. Belton
91 A.2d 137 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
185 F.2d 225, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-ramsey-ca8-1950.