Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia
United States Supreme Court
328 U.S. 373 (1946)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Under a Virginia statute, “white and colored passengers” were required to be separately seated on all passenger buses traveling in the state and between states. The number of allocated seats for each race could change at any given time as necessary to maintain the separation. Failing to comply was punishable as a misdemeanor. Irene Morgan (defendant), who was Black, boarded a bus to travel from Virginia to Maryland through Washington, D.C. In Virginia, she refused to move from a seat allocated for white passengers to a seat in the back allocated for colored persons. She was arrested and convicted by the state (plaintiff). At the time, there was no federal law on the issue of racial separation in interstate transportation. Eighteen northern and western states prohibited racial separation on public transportation, while 10 southern states required racial separation. Some states requiring racial separation also defined a means of identifying a person as colored, and the definitions varied. In Virginia, a colored person was someone with any ascertainable Negro blood. Morgan appealed her conviction to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Virginia statute violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reed, J.)
Dissent (Burton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.