×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Supreme Court Holds Racial Segregation Illegal
The United States Supreme Court affirmed a ruling by a three judge district court that held the racial segregation of prisoners in Alabama violates the Fourteenth amendment. See: Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333, 88 S.Ct. 994, 19 LE.2d 1212 (1968).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Lee v. Washington
| Year | 1968 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 390 U.S. 333, 88 S.Ct. 994 (1968) |
| Level | Supreme Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
LEE v. WASHINGTON ET AL., 88 S. Ct. 994, 390 U.S. 333 (U.S. 03/11/1968)
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[2] No. 75
[3] 88 S. Ct. 994, 390 U.S. 333, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1212, 1968
[4] decided: March 11, 1968.
[5] LEE, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS OF ALABAMA, ET AL
v.
WASHINGTON ET AL.
[6] APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.
[7] Nicholas S. Hare, Special Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General, Gordon Madison, Assistant Attorney General, and J. M. Breckenridge.
[8] Charles Morgan, Jr., argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Orzell Billingsley, Jr., and Melvin L. Wulf.
[9] Warren, Black, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas, Marshall
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[ 390 U.S. Page 333]
[11] This appeal challenges a decree of a three-judge District Court declaring that certain Alabama statutes violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they require segregation of the races in prisons and jails, and establishing a schedule for desegregation of these institutions. The State's contentions that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which relates to class actions, was violated in this case and that the challenged statutes are not unconstitutional are without merit. The remaining contention of the State is that the specific orders directing desegregation of prisons and
[ 390 U.S. Page 334]
jails make no allowance for the necessities of prison security and discipline, but we do not so read the "Order, Judgment and Decree" of the District Court, which when read as a whole we find unexceptionable.
[12] The judgment is affirmed.
[13] Disposition
[14] 263 F.Supp. 327, affirmed.
[15] MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, and MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.
[16] In joining the opinion of the Court, we wish to make explicit something that is left to be gathered only by implication from the Court's opinion. This is that prison authorities have the right, acting in good faith and in particularized circumstances, to take into account racial tensions in maintaining security, discipline, and good order in prisons and jails. We are unwilling to assume that state or local prison authorities might mistakenly regard such an explicit pronouncement as evincing any dilution of this Court's firm commitment to the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition of racial discrimination.
[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
[2] No. 75
[3] 88 S. Ct. 994, 390 U.S. 333, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1212, 1968
[4] decided: March 11, 1968.
[5] LEE, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS OF ALABAMA, ET AL
v.
WASHINGTON ET AL.
[6] APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.
[7] Nicholas S. Hare, Special Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General, Gordon Madison, Assistant Attorney General, and J. M. Breckenridge.
[8] Charles Morgan, Jr., argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Orzell Billingsley, Jr., and Melvin L. Wulf.
[9] Warren, Black, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas, Marshall
[10] Author: Per Curiam
[ 390 U.S. Page 333]
[11] This appeal challenges a decree of a three-judge District Court declaring that certain Alabama statutes violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they require segregation of the races in prisons and jails, and establishing a schedule for desegregation of these institutions. The State's contentions that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which relates to class actions, was violated in this case and that the challenged statutes are not unconstitutional are without merit. The remaining contention of the State is that the specific orders directing desegregation of prisons and
[ 390 U.S. Page 334]
jails make no allowance for the necessities of prison security and discipline, but we do not so read the "Order, Judgment and Decree" of the District Court, which when read as a whole we find unexceptionable.
[12] The judgment is affirmed.
[13] Disposition
[14] 263 F.Supp. 327, affirmed.
[15] MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, and MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.
[16] In joining the opinion of the Court, we wish to make explicit something that is left to be gathered only by implication from the Court's opinion. This is that prison authorities have the right, acting in good faith and in particularized circumstances, to take into account racial tensions in maintaining security, discipline, and good order in prisons and jails. We are unwilling to assume that state or local prison authorities might mistakenly regard such an explicit pronouncement as evincing any dilution of this Court's firm commitment to the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition of racial discrimination.