Crandall v. The State of Connecticut
Connecticut Supreme Court
10 Conn. 339 (1834)
Facts
In an information, the prosecutor (plaintiff) charged Prudence Crandall (defendant) with violating a Connecticut statute that prohibited the teaching or schooling of nonresident Black people without obtaining required written consents. The statute did not apply under certain circumstances, including the school’s proper licensure. The information alleged that (1) Crandall set up a school in the state for the education of Black nonresidents, (2) specified nonresident Black persons boarded and attended the school, and (3) Crandall did not obtain the required consents. The information did not allege that Crandall’s school was unlicensed. At trial, Crandall argued that even if the alleged facts were proved, the nonresident Black students were citizens of their respective birth states and entitled to the privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens under the U.S. Constitution. She claimed that the statute was unconstitutional. The trial court instructed the jury that free Black people were not citizens, and the jury convicted Crandall. Her post-judgment motion and appeal focused on the trial court’s instructional error and the statute’s invalidity on constitutional grounds.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
Dissent (Daggett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 688,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 43,000 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
