Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1938

Missouri Ex Rel. Gaines v. Canada

305 U.S. 337 | 59 S. Ct. 232 | 83 L. Ed. 208 | 1938 U.S. LEXIS 440

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case held that a State cannot satisfy equal protection by sending Black residents elsewhere for legal education while reserving its own state law school for white residents.

Background

Lloyd Gaines, a Black Missouri citizen and graduate of Lincoln University, applied to the University of Missouri School of Law. His academic credentials would have qualified him for admission, but the University denied his application solely because Missouri's policy excluded Black students from the University of Missouri.

Missouri operated Lincoln University for Black students, but Lincoln had no law school. State law allowed officials either to establish programs at Lincoln when they considered that necessary and practicable or to pay Black Missouri residents' tuition at universities in neighboring States. Gaines was directed to seek this out-of-state tuition assistance.

Gaines sought a writ of mandamus compelling his admission to the Missouri law school, arguing that the exclusion violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Missouri circuit court quashed the alternative writ and denied relief. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, reasoning that the State could maintain separate higher-education systems and that tuition at an adequate law school in an adjacent State was a sufficient temporary substitute. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the University of Missouri curators' race-based denial of Gaines's application constituted state action subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding

Yes. The curators acted as representatives of Missouri in managing the state university, so their decision was attributable to the State.

Reasoning

The University of Missouri's curators were state officials charged by Missouri law with administering a public institution. Their refusal to admit Gaines therefore was not merely private discrimination; it was state action governed by the Equal Protection Clause.

The Missouri Supreme Court had construed the State's constitution and statutes as embodying a policy of racial separation in higher education. Thus, the curators had denied Gaines admission pursuant to state policy and solely because of his race.

Issue #2

Whether Missouri satisfied equal protection by paying Gaines's tuition at a law school in a neighboring State while maintaining an in-state law school for white residents only.

Holding

No. Once Missouri provided legal education to white residents within Missouri, it had to provide Black residents a substantially equal legal right to legal education within the State.

Reasoning

The Court treated the relevant comparison as the opportunities Missouri itself gave to white and Black Missouri residents. A qualified white resident could attend Missouri's state law school, while an equally qualified Black resident was barred from that in-state privilege solely because of race.

The adequacy of law schools in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, or Illinois did not answer the constitutional question. Equal protection is a duty imposed on each State regarding the legal rights and opportunities it creates within its own jurisdiction; Missouri could not shift that duty to neighboring States.

Out-of-state tuition might reduce the practical burden on Gaines, but it could not validate the underlying discrimination. The constitutional defect was the unequal legal right: white students received legal education in Missouri, while Black students had to leave Missouri to obtain it.

The Court also rejected the suggestion that a small number of Black applicants excused the disparity. Equal protection is a personal right. Although a State may consider reasonable demand when deciding whether to create facilities in the first instance, it may not deny equal treatment to an individual once it has provided the relevant facility for others under like conditions.

Issue #3

Whether Missouri's contemplated future law school at Lincoln University, Gaines's failure to apply there, or the supposedly temporary nature of the out-of-state arrangement cured the present inequality.

Holding

No. A discretionary and unrealized plan for a separate law school did not supply Gaines an equal present opportunity within Missouri.

Reasoning

Missouri law authorized Lincoln University's curators to expand the institution to the University of Missouri's standard when, in their judgment, doing so was necessary and practicable. But no law school had actually been established at Lincoln when Gaines applied, and an unfulfilled statement of future purpose was not an existing educational opportunity.

The Missouri Supreme Court had not held that Lincoln's curators were required to create a law school for Gaines if he applied. Rather, it understood state law to leave the curators free either to establish a law school or to send Black students to schools outside Missouri. Gaines therefore was not required to make a futile or non-dispositive application to Lincoln before asserting his federal right.

Calling the discrimination temporary did not save it. The arrangement could continue indefinitely because the decision whether and when to establish a Lincoln law school remained discretionary, while out-of-state tuition remained an available alternative.

Issue #4

Whether the mandamus posture or Gaines's failure to seek instruction from Lincoln University prevented the Court from reaching the federal claim or granting relief.

Holding

No. The Missouri courts had reached and rejected Gaines's equal-protection claim, and mandamus was an appropriate means of seeking admission if that right was established.

Reasoning

Although Gaines proceeded by mandamus, the state court had not rejected the case on a purely procedural ground. It had addressed the constitutional adequacy of Missouri's out-of-state tuition arrangement, thereby squarely presenting the federal question for Supreme Court review.

Because the state court did not regard Lincoln's curators as under a mandatory duty to create a law school for Gaines, his failure to apply there did not eliminate the constitutional issue. In the absence of another proper in-state provision for his legal education, Gaines was entitled to admission to the University of Missouri School of Law.

Dissents

Justice McReynolds

Reasoning

Justice McReynolds, joined in these views by Justice Butler, would have affirmed. In his view, Missouri had made a fair and practical effort to offer Gaines legal training by paying his tuition at a nearby, reputable law school, and that arrangement was sufficient under the circumstances.

He stressed the States' broad authority over public education and Missouri's longstanding policy of racially separate schools. He believed federal intervention was justified only by a clear and unmistakable violation of federal rights, not by what he regarded as an adequate accommodation for a specialized course of study.

McReynolds also emphasized the practical difficulty of requiring Missouri to alter its established educational system when no Black applicant had previously sought admission to the state law school or requested legal instruction at Lincoln. He cautioned that the majority's rule might lead Missouri to close its law school or abandon its separation policy, while doing little to improve Gaines's educational prospects.

Finally, he maintained that mandamus was discretionary rather than a writ of right. Because the Missouri Supreme Court had not assessed the propriety of mandamus under the majority's constitutional approach, he believed that court's refusal to issue the writ should not have been disturbed.