Appellant filed a complaint requesting injunctive relief, alleging that the action of the school authorities and the statutes upon which their action was based were unconstitutional and deprived him of the equal protection of the laws. 0000067670 00000 n Marian W. Perry and Franklin H. Williams were also of counsel. McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS :: 2020 (b) That appellant may still be set apart by his fellow students and may be in no better position when these restrictions are removed is irrelevant, for there is a constitutional difference between restrictions imposed by the State which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students and the refusal of students to commingle where the State presents no such bar. No. (1950) 455, 456, 457. Appellants case represents, perhaps, the epitome of that need, for he is attempting to obtain an advanced degree in education, to become, by definition, a leader and trainer of others. Mr. Fred Hansen, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellees. Their own education and development will necessarily suffer to the extent that his training is unequal to that of his classmates. WebMCLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS, 339 U.S. 637 (1950) Reset A A Font size: Print United States Supreme Court McLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS The Act secured the right to vote for minorities in the South. On January 28, 1948, a retired black professor, George McLaurin, applied to the University of Oklahoma to pursue a Doctorate in Education. (1950) Henderson v. United States Et. These restrictions were obviously imposed in order to comply, as nearly as could be, with the statutory requirements of Oklahoma. On June 5, 1950, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a public institution of higher learning could not provide different treatment to a student solely because of his/her race as doing so deprived the student of his/her Fourteenth Amendment rights of Equal Protection. It may be argued that appellant will be in no better position when these restrictions are removed, for he may still be set apart by his fellow students. Appellant filed a complaint requesting injunctive relief, alleging that the action of the school authorities and the statutes upon which their action was based were unconstitutional and deprived him [339 U.S. 637, 639] of the equal protection of the laws. Appellant is a Negro citizen of Oklahoma. State-imposed restrictions which produce such inequalities cannot be sustained. 526. WebMcLaurin v. Okla. State Regents for Higher Educ. The Supreme Court reasoned that, under the Fourteenth Amendments equal protection clause, state officials had the legal duty to treat the plaintiff in the same manner as students of other races. 87 F. Supp. WebOther articles where Sweatt v. Painter is discussed: Brown v. Board of Education: Decision: the Supreme Courts rulings in Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and McLaurin v. Oklahoma 0000005065 00000 n 851, 94 L.Ed. Updates? On the assumption, however, that the State would follow the constitutional mandate, the court refused to grant the injunction, retaining jurisdiction of the cause with full power to issue any necessary and proper orders to secure McLaurin the equal protection of the laws.
Adelaide 36ers 2002 Roster, Ford F150 Seat Replacement, What Bbcor Bats Are Banned In High School?, Articles M