Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla.

332 U.S. 631

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1948-04-12
Topic
general

Per Curiam. On January 14, 1946, the petitioner, a Negro, concededly qualified to receive the professional legal education offered by the State, applied for admission to the School of Law of the University of Oklahoma, the only institution for legal education supported and maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma. Petitioner’s application for admission was denied, solely because of her color. Petitioner then made application for a writ of mandamus in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The writ of mandamus was refused, and the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 199 Okla. 36, 180 P. 2d 135.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
96 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection A state may not deny a qualified applicant admission to a state-supported professional school solely because of the applicant's race, and the State must provide such education to the applicant in conformity with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 332 U.S. 631, 632-633
  2. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection Where a State affords educational opportunities to one group of applicants, the Equal Protection Clause requires that it provide the same professional education to a qualified applicant of another group, and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other group. 332 U.S. 631, 633 (citing Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938))
SIPUELv. BOARD OF REGENTS,332 U.S. 631(1948)
68 S.Ct. 299
SIPUELv. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.
No. 369.
Argued January 7-8, 1948.
Decided January 12, 1948.
A Negro, concededly qualified to receive professional legal education offered by a State, cannot be denied such education because of her color. The State must provide such education for her in conformity with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other group. Pp. 632-633.199 Okla. 36,180 P.2d 135, reversed.
The Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed a denial by an inferior
state court of a writ of mandamus to require
Page 632
admission of a qualified Negro applicant to a state law school.
199 Okla. 36,180 P.2d 135. This Court granted certiorari.
332 U.S. 814.Reversed, p. 633.
Thurgood MarshallandAmos T. Hallargued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief wasFrank D. Reeves.Fred Hansen, First Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, andMaurice H. Merrillargued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief wasMac Q. Williamson, Attorney General.

Briefs ofamici curiaeurging reversal were filed byRobertW. Kenny, O. John Rogge, andAndrew D. Weinbergerfor the National Lawyers Guild; andArthur Garfield HaysandOsmond K.Fraenkelfor the American Civil Liberties Union.
PER CURIAM.
On January 14, 1946, the petitioner, a Negro, concededly qualified to receive the professional legal education offered by the State, applied for admission to the School of Law of the University of Oklahoma, the only institution for legal education supported and maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma. Petitioner's application for admission was denied, solely because of her color.

Petitioner then made application for a writ of mandamus in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The writ of mandamus was refused, and the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma affirmed the judgment of the District Court.199 Okla. 36,180 P.2d 135. We brought the case here for review.

The petitioner is entitled to secure legal education afforded by a state institution. To this time, it has been denied her although during the same period manyPage 633white applicants have been afforded legal education by the State. The State must provide it for her in conformity with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other group.Missouri exrel. Gainesv.Canada,305 U.S. 337(1938).

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.Reversed.