Sweatt v. Painter

339 U.S. 629 (1950)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Sweatt v. Painter

United States Supreme Court
339 U.S. 629 (1950)

Play video

Facts

In 1945, Heman Marion Sweatt (plaintiff) applied for admission to the University of Texas School of Law (the university), a public university operated by the state of Texas. State law restricted attendance at the university to only White students. Sweatt’s application was rejected because he was Black. Sweatt sued the university’s president, Theophilus Painter (defendant), in state court, alleging that the state’s denial violated Sweatt’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The trial court ruled that under current United States Supreme Court precedent, the state could provide separate-but-equal schools for Black students, but because the state did not offer any law schools for Black students, it was committing a potential equal-protection violation. The state agreed to create a separate law school for Black students, and the trial court found that this was enough to satisfy equal protection. The state created a new, segregated law school that used three rooms in the basement of a public building, used the capitol building’s public law library as its library, borrowed four faculty members from the university’s law school on a part-time basis, and was not accredited. The university’s law school had: 16 full-time and three part-time professors, some of whom were nationally recognized authorities in their fields; a law review; moot-court facilities; scholarship funds; and a library containing over 65,000 volumes. Sweatt appealed, arguing that the new school was not equal to the university’s law school. The appellate court ordered the trial court to evaluate whether the two law schools were equal. The trial court ruled that the new school offered Sweatt educational opportunities substantially equivalent to those offered to White students and, therefore, that the state had not violated the Equal Protection Clause. The state appellate and supreme courts affirmed the ruling. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. By that point, the new school had five full-time professors, had its own library with 16,500 volumes, and was in the process of receiving accreditation. Among other arguments, Sweatt asked the Supreme Court to overturn the rule in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), that official racial segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause if the government provided separate-but-equal facilities for Blacks and Whites.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Vinson, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership