Court: Supreme Court of the United States; November 21, 1927; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Gong Lum, a Mississippi resident and father of nine-year-old Martha Lum, filed a petition for mandamus in the state circuit court after his daughter was denied admission to Rosedale consolidated high school due to her Chinese descent. The petition, supported by Chew How, a U.S. citizen, claimed that Martha, described as of good moral character and an educable child, had the right to attend school under Mississippi law. Upon her arrival at school, she was informed by the superintendent that she could not return, as a board of trustees' order excluded her based solely on her race, following directives from the state superintendent of education. The petition highlighted that there were no schools for children of Chinese descent in Bolivar County and argued that the Mississippi Constitution mandates the establishment of a common school fund and educational opportunities for all children aged 5 to 21. Gong Lum, as a taxpayer supporting the school, asserted that Martha was entitled to attend, emphasizing that the denial of her admission was discriminatory and lacking legal authority.
A writ of mandamus is sought against the defendants to prevent racial discrimination and ensure equal rights for Martha Lum, a child of Mongolian descent, to attend Rosedale consolidated high school, like other children aged 5 to 21. The defendants demurred, arguing that she is not entitled to attend schools designated for white children under Mississippi law. The trial court overruled the demurrer and granted the writ, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of section 207 of the 1890 state Constitution, which mandates separate schools for white and colored races. It ruled that the Constitution classifies children into Caucasian and non-Caucasian groups, denying Lum's claim to attend white schools. The court clarified that the legislature is not required to create separate schools for every racial group and that Lum could seek education in the existing colored schools. It noted that public education is not compulsory, allowing parents to choose private schooling instead, but Lum is not entitled to attend a white public school. The court's ruling raised questions about the adequacy of educational opportunities for Chinese children in Bolivar County, despite the claim that colored schools exist in every county.
Statutory provisions mandate the division of each county's territory into separate school districts for white and colored races, allowing for different territorial boundaries for each. The system does not require schools for each race to be maintained within every district, as children from any area are assigned to specific school districts. Each district must adhere to the same curriculum and school term length, provided attendance meets statutory requirements. While it is acknowledged that there are colored school districts in Bolivar County, there is no colored school within the Rosedale consolidated high school district. Martha Lum, a plaintiff, is not denied access to a common school education if a colored school is available in a different district. The petition lacks evidence that no conveniently accessible colored school exists for her, which would have altered the legal question presented.
The inquiry centers on whether a state can offer equal protection under the law to a child of Chinese ancestry by providing access to a school designated for colored children. The state's authority to regulate public education is affirmed, referencing the Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education case, where the Supreme Court found that not providing equal facilities for colored children did not constitute a denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, while it is recognized that citizens should not face discrimination in sharing the benefits of public taxation, the management of public education falls under state jurisdiction, allowing for minimal federal interference unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights.
The central issue pertains to whether a Chinese citizen in the United States is denied equal protection under the law when categorized among colored races and provided educational facilities comparable to those available to all racial groups. This question has been previously adjudicated and determined to fall within the constitutional authority of state legislatures, without requiring federal court intervention. Various cases, including Roberts v. City of Boston and Plessy v. Ferguson, support the validity of legislative power to enforce racial separation in schools. The court noted that similar laws have been enacted and upheld across multiple jurisdictions, affirming that the differentiation between races in educational settings does not inherently violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the decision regarding educational regulation lies within state discretion, and the judgment from the Supreme Court of Mississippi is upheld.
