Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Lee v. Washington

390 U.S. 333

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1968-03-11
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • affirming determination that Alabama statutes requiring racial segregation in prisons violate Fourteenth Amendment
  • plaintiff class of prisoners against defendant class of wardens and jailers charged with enforcing statutes relating to segregation of prisoners
  • plaintiffs sought desegregation of State penal system and county and city jails; class composed of all wardens, jailers and sheriffs in Alabama
  • class of sheriffs and wardens proper in suit attacking statute calling for segregation of prisoners
  • statutes requiring racial segregation in prisons and jails violate Fourteenth Amendment
  • prisoners are protected under the Equal 17 Protection Clause from invidious discrimination based on race
  • county sheriff and city warden properly sued as representatives of their counterparts in class action to enjoin racial segregation in state penal system and in county, city, and town jails
  • segregation of prisoners on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lee v. Washington. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
379 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection Alabama statutes that require segregation of the races in prisons and jails violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and a district court may establish a schedule for desegregation of those institutions. 390 U.S. 333, 333-34
  2. General — Corrections — Prison Security and Discipline Orders directing desegregation of prisons and jails need not expressly allow for the necessities of prison security and discipline, and desegregation decrees are to be read as a whole rather than as foreclosing the good-faith consideration of such necessities. 390 U.S. at 334
  3. General — Corrections — Racial Tensions and Institutional Security Prison authorities have the right, acting in good faith and in particularized circumstances, to take racial tensions into account in maintaining security, discipline, and good order in prisons and jails; recognition of that right does not dilute the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition of racial discrimination. 390 U.S. at 334 (Black, Harlan, and Stewart, JJ., concurring)
390 U.S. 333 (1968)

LEE, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS OF ALABAMA, ET AL.
v.
WASHINGTON ET AL.

No. 75.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued November 7, 1967. Decided March 11, 1968. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.

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.

Charles Morgan, Jr., argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Orzell Billingsley, Jr., and Melvin L. Wulf.

PER CURIAM.

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 *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.

The judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, and MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

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.