Supreme Court of the United States • 1968
390 U.S. 333 | 88 S. Ct. 994 | 19 L. Ed. 2d 1212 | 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2223
Full access
The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.
Takeaway
In short, this case confirmed that a State may not mandate racial segregation in its prisons and jails, while recognizing that officials may respond in good faith to particular, security-related racial tensions.
Alabama statutes required racial segregation in the State’s prisons and jails. Inmates challenged those statutes and the resulting segregation under the Fourteenth Amendment.
A three-judge federal district court held that the statutes were unconstitutional insofar as they mandated racial segregation. It entered an order establishing a schedule to desegregate Alabama prisons and jails. Alabama appealed, arguing that the suit improperly proceeded as a class action, that the segregation statutes were constitutional, and that the remedial order insufficiently accommodated institutional security and discipline.
Whether the action was improperly maintained as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Holding
No. The State’s Rule 23 objection was without merit.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court rejected Alabama’s procedural challenge without extended discussion. It affirmed the district court’s authority to adjudicate the challenge and grant systemwide relief against statutes requiring segregation in the State’s prisons and jails.
Whether Alabama statutes requiring racial segregation in prisons and jails violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holding
Yes. The statutes were unconstitutional to the extent that they required racial segregation.
Reasoning
The Court affirmed the three-judge district court’s conclusion that state-imposed racial segregation in prisons and jails violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Alabama’s contrary defense of the statutes was, in the Court’s view, without merit.
The ruling addressed laws that made segregation mandatory. The Court thus held that Alabama could not maintain a prison or jail system organized around a statutory command to separate prisoners by race.
Whether the district court’s desegregation orders were invalid because they made no allowance for prison security and discipline.
Holding
No. Read as a whole, the district court’s order was unobjectionable and did not disregard the needs of prison administration.
Reasoning
Alabama argued that the remedial decree required desegregation without recognizing the practical necessities of maintaining security, discipline, and order. The Supreme Court did not read the district court’s "Order, Judgment and Decree" in that rigid way.
Viewing the decree as a whole, the Court found it compatible with legitimate prison-administration concerns. It therefore affirmed both the constitutional ruling and the schedule directing desegregation.
Reasoning
Justice Black joined the Court’s per curiam opinion but wrote with Justices Harlan and Stewart to make explicit a qualification they believed should not be left merely implicit. Prison officials may, when acting in good faith and responding to particularized circumstances, take racial tensions into account in preserving security, discipline, and good order.
The concurrence did not retreat from the Court’s commitment to the Fourteenth Amendment’s ban on racial discrimination. Rather, it explained that invalidating a general statutory policy of mandatory segregation did not forbid officials from considering concrete racial tensions when genuinely necessary to manage a prison or jail safely.
Reasoning
Justice Harlan joined the Court’s per curiam opinion but wrote with Justices Black and Stewart to make explicit a qualification they believed should not be left merely implicit. Prison officials may, when acting in good faith and responding to particularized circumstances, take racial tensions into account in preserving security, discipline, and good order.
The concurrence did not retreat from the Court’s commitment to the Fourteenth Amendment’s ban on racial discrimination. Rather, it explained that invalidating a general statutory policy of mandatory segregation did not forbid officials from considering concrete racial tensions when genuinely necessary to manage a prison or jail safely.
Reasoning
Justice Stewart joined the Court’s per curiam opinion but wrote with Justices Black and Harlan to make explicit a qualification they believed should not be left merely implicit. Prison officials may, when acting in good faith and responding to particularized circumstances, take racial tensions into account in preserving security, discipline, and good order.
The concurrence did not retreat from the Court’s commitment to the Fourteenth Amendment’s ban on racial discrimination. Rather, it explained that invalidating a general statutory policy of mandatory segregation did not forbid officials from considering concrete racial tensions when genuinely necessary to manage a prison or jail safely.