The Petitioner's Brief In Sweatt V. Painter, 1950

In “The Petitioner’s Brief in Sweatt v. Painter, 1950”, the document explained the NAACP arguments as they were before the Supreme Court. Essentially, it explored three arguments that the NAACP would later employ in future cases regarding segregation. Reprinted within Waldo E. Martin Jr.’s, “Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents”, it offers key insight into the arguments the NAACP used in the Supreme Court. The first argument relates to whether schools established for Blacks fulfills the Equal Protection Clause. The NAACP lawyers made a distinction as they realized that many states in the country do not have the issue of racial segregation in schools. The lawyers referenced a report from the President’s Commission on Higher
Oklahoma State Regents, post (1950) case. McLaurin, an African-American student enrolled at the University of Oklahoma for his doctorate in education. It is important to realize that although his case was similar to Sweatt, however there was a difference. McLaurin was already in the school, while Sweatt was attempting to emulate his success. As specified in the Supreme Court opinion the “state law “instruction of Negroes in institutions of higher education be "upon a segregated basis”. In other words, his experience at the school would be different from his White peers and sued for his right to have equal treatment using the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. In the Supreme Court opinion written by Chief Justice Vinson, he found that the restrictions “impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” Therefore, the Supreme Court decided that the state policies were unconstitutional as they violated Sweatt rights as it pertained to the Equal Protection Clause. In the Sweatt case, the court would again use the clause in explaining their
At the end, Chief Justice Vinson said that, “We hold that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that petitioner be admitted to the University of Texas Law School. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” In other words, the NAACP and Sweatt were victorious in their appeal to the Supreme Court. Denying Sweatt due to race was wrong. At the point in time, he would be starting his classes sooner rather than never. Before then, Jim Crow was facing an existential crisis. The Austin American newspaper reported the news in an appropriately titled article called, “South Turmoil Over Sweatt Rule”. On the subject of the Supreme Court ruling, the governor of Georgia Herman Talmadge was fiercely opposed to their decision. In fact, he said, “As long as I am governor, Negroes will not be admitted to white schools.” It was one of numerous statements said, which openly stated intention to defy the Supreme Court order. The fear that NAACP legal victory was not enough to changed