Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Briggs v. Elliott
Citations: 96 L. Ed. 2d 392; 72 S. Ct. 327; 342 U.S. 350; 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2486Docket: 273
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; February 4, 1952; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
In *Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al.*, the appellants, a group of Negro school children, sought to prevent school officials from enforcing racial distinctions in educational facilities in Clarendon County, South Carolina. They contended that the facilities for Negro pupils were not equal to those provided for white pupils and claimed that the South Carolina laws mandating separate schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment. During the trial, the school officials acknowledged the inequality in facilities. Despite this admission, the District Court, with one dissenting judge, ruled that the existing laws were not inherently unconstitutional and ordered the school officials to improve the facilities for Negro students to meet the standard of equality. The court required the officials to report on their compliance within six months but did not grant the broader injunction sought by the appellants. Dissatisfied with this limited relief, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court could address the appeal, the school officials submitted their progress report to the District Court, which chose to refrain from further action until the appeal was resolved. The Supreme Court decided to vacate the District Court's judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings and allowing the District Court to consider the new information presented in the report. Justices Black and Douglas dissented, arguing that the additional facts were irrelevant to the constitutional issues at hand and that the Supreme Court should proceed with the appeal rather than remand the case. The Supreme Court's decision allows for the potential for further appeals following the District Court's subsequent actions.