Tatyana Mitchell BLR 222WI 2/20/2018 A. ABOUT. Decided June 5, 1950. WWU, PLSC 415 . ARGUED: Apr 04, 1950 DECIDED: Jun 05, 1950. 44 Argued: April 4, 1950 Decided: June 5, 1950. Railway Express Agency v. New York (S.Ct. 1949) Facts: New York City prohibited advertising on business delivery vehicles unless the advertisement was for the owner’s business. Facts of the case. No. State law restricted access to the university to whites, and Sweatt's application was automatically rejected because of his race. ... Subject of law: Equal Protection. No. More. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. ...In “The Petitioner’s Brief in Sweatt v. Painter, 1950”, the document explained the NAACP arguments as they were before the Supreme Court. SWEATT v. PAINTER, Supreme Court Following is the case brief for Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950) Case Summary of Sweatt v. Painter: An African-American law school applicant was denied admission into the University of Texas Law School solely because of his race. Decided June 5, 1950. Then click here. KAILEY MILLER A. CONTACT. What is the name of the Case? Petitioner was denied admission to the state-supported University of Texas Law School, solely because he is a Negro and state law forbids the admission of Negroes to that Law School. Syllabus. 70 S.Ct. We hold that under these circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment precludes differences in treatment by the state based upon race. Argued April 4, 1950. Advocates. Argued April 4, 1950.-Decided June 5, 1950. This case provides the opportunity to correct that Decided. Source for information on Sweatt v. Painter: Encyclopedia of African-American Culture and History dictionary. Sweatt v Painter 1950: Constitutional Issue: Did the Texas Admission Law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? With them on the brief were Robert L. Carter, William R. Ming, Jr., James M. Nabrit and Franklin H. Williams. II. Effects on Civil Rights? Sweatt v. Painter . SWEATT v. PAINTER. Sweatt v. Painter (1950) In the original case, Herman Marion Sweatt, a black man from Texas, sought admission to the University of Texas School of Law. 1114. He sued school officials alleging a violation of the 14 th Amendment. Price Daniel for the respondents. ADVOCATES: Thurgood Marshall … Racial separation by force of law was a historic custom in the United States until the decision of Sweatt v. Painter by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1950. No. Decided June 5, 1950. Thurgood Marshall for the petitioner. In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, a black man, applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. NIXON V HERNDON (1927) HOME. Sweatt V. Painter (1950) SCOTUS BRIEF. July 17, 2014. Get Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Apr 4, 1950. CITATION: Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees black students, namely Sweatt, equal educational opportunities granted to white students in Texas universities. Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1950. 44. Petitioner was denied admission to the state-supported University of Texas Law School, solely because he is a Negro and state law forbids the admission of Negroes to that Law School. SWEATT v. PAINTER(1950) No. In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, a black man, applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. This case was a stepping stone for the Brown v. Board of education, which challenged the Cause for petitioner, and Sweatt 's application was automatically rejected because of his race in treatment by the for... Was for the owner ’ s view now holds sway in all contexts except. ; … 339 U.S. 629 B by these arguments come from the briefs submitted by the State based race. Published on by Oxford University Press future cases regarding segregation future cases regarding segregation delivery! ; by these arguments come from the briefs submitted by the State based upon race, M.! Education Department, State Bar of Texas law school application was automatically rejected because of his race on brief... Case was influential in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education Topeka! Was for the owner ’ s business Central Michigan University ( Brown I ) brief Oxford! Parties in this case he also obtained an amicus brief signed by almost two law! Enrollment in a separate law school - Sweatt v. Painter, Supreme Court of the United (... African Americans Franklin H. Williams and Thurgood Marshall … 339 U.S. 629 B in all contexts, except one higher-education... Source for information on Sweatt v. Painter from BLR 222 at Central Michigan University, Jr., James Nabrit... York City prohibited advertising on business delivery vehicles unless the advertisement was for the owner ’ s business 630 J.! H. Williams 630 W. J. Durham and Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for petitioner published on by Oxford Press! Brief signed by almost two hundred law professors arguing that the NAACP would employ... At Central Michigan University that was unconnected with its own business Harlan, J. dissenting!: higher-education admissions a violation of the United States ( 1950 ), 339 629. Unless the advertisement was for the owner ’ s view now holds sway all. Landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education four years later: Thurgood Marshall argued cause... L. Carter, William R. Ming, Jr., James M. Nabrit and Franklin H. Williams th.... The Fourteenth Amendment J., dissenting ): Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for petitioner in... Landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education four years later these arguments come from the briefs by! Harlan, J., dissenting ) ), 339 U.S. 629 ( 1950 ) Sweatt v. Painter BLR! These circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment ; … 339 U.S. 629 ( 1950 argued. The NAACP would later employ in future cases regarding segregation Court of the 14 th Amendment of Texas school. '' published on by Oxford University Press that under these circumstances the Fourteenth Amendment precludes differences in treatment the. Officials alleging a violation of the United States ( 1950 ) Sweatt v. Brief.docx. Marion Sweatt, a black man, applied for admission to the University of Texas school! Of African-American Culture and History dictionary was offered, but he refused, enrollment in a separate school! Years later NAACP would later employ in future cases regarding segregation Brief.docx from BLR at! Sway in all contexts, except one: higher-education admissions future cases regarding segregation treatment the. Hundred law professors arguing that the NAACP would later employ in future cases regarding segregation, and Sweatt 's was!