Gray v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn.

Supreme Court

Gray v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn.

342 U.S. 517, 72 S. Ct. 432, 96 L. Ed. 2d 540, 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2389

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 28, 1952

DocketNO. 120

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 342 U.S. 517 (Gray v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gray v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Tenn., 342 U.S. 517, 72 S. Ct. 432, 96 L. Ed. 2d 540, 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2389 (1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellants, on behalf of themselves and other Negroes “similarly situated,” sued in the District Court to enjoin appellees from alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in refusing to admit Negroes to the Univer *518 sity of Tennessee. A three-judge cohrt, convened at appellants’ request, held that this case was not within the jurisdiction of a three-judge court under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 2281 and ordered that the case proceed before a single district judge. 100 F. Supp. 113. The single judge held that appellants were entitled to relief but did not enter an order. 97 F. Supp. 463.

Appellants contend that only a court of three judges has jurisdiction over the cause. No. 120 is an appeal from the order dissolving the three-judge court brought directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1253. We set the appeal down for argument, postponing consideration of jurisdictional questions. In No. 159 Misc., appellants asked, in the alternative, that we issue a writ of mandamus to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court. We issued a rule to show cause why the petition for mandamus should not be granted, 342 U. S. 846, and, upon the filing of a response to the rule, set the petition down for argument with the appeal.

At the argument, counsel for appellees stated that appellants would be admitted to the University of Tennessee as requested. Thereafter, appellants filed a motion stating that appellant Gray has been admitted to the University and that the other appellants were, because of changed circumstances, unable to avail themselves of the opportunity at present. Appellants moved this Court to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court and to remand the case to that court for further proceedings. Since appellants’ requests for admission to the University of Tennessee have been granted and since there is no suggestion that any person “similarly situated” will not be afforded similar treatment, appellants’ motion is denied and the judgments below are vacated and the District Court is directed to dismiss the action upon the ground that the cause is moot.

It is so ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellants, on behalf of themselves and other Negroes “similarly situated,” sued in the District Court to enjoin appellees from alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in refusing to admit Negroes to the Univer *518 sity of Tennessee. A three-judge cohrt, convened at appellants’ request, held that this case was not within the jurisdiction of a three-judge court under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 2281 and ordered that the case proceed before a single district judge. 100 F. Supp. 113. The single judge held that appellants were entitled to relief but did not enter an order. 97 F. Supp. 463.

Appellants contend that only a court of three judges has jurisdiction over the cause. No. 120 is an appeal from the order dissolving the three-judge court brought directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1253. We set the appeal down for argument, postponing consideration of jurisdictional questions. In No. 159 Misc., appellants asked, in the alternative, that we issue a writ of mandamus to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court. We issued a rule to show cause why the petition for mandamus should not be granted, 342 U. S. 846, and, upon the filing of a response to the rule, set the petition down for argument with the appeal.

At the argument, counsel for appellees stated that appellants would be admitted to the University of Tennessee as requested. Thereafter, appellants filed a motion stating that appellant Gray has been admitted to the University and that the other appellants were, because of changed circumstances, unable to avail themselves of the opportunity at present. Appellants moved this Court to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court and to remand the case to that court for further proceedings. Since appellants’ requests for admission to the University of Tennessee have been granted and since there is no suggestion that any person “similarly situated” will not be afforded similar treatment, appellants’ motion is denied and the judgments below are vacated and the District Court is directed to dismiss the action upon the ground that the cause is moot.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 U.S. 517, 72 S. Ct. 432, 96 L. Ed. 2d 540, 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-board-of-trustees-of-univ-of-tenn-scotus-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack