Supreme Court of the United States, 1948

Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 12, 1948 · Per Curiam

332 U.S. 631; 68 S. Ct. 299; 92 L. Ed. 2d 247; 1948 U.S. LEXIS 2645 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Thurgood Marshall and Amos T. Hall argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was Frank D. Reeves., Fred Hansen, First Assistant Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Maurice H. Merrill argued the cause for respondents. With them on the brief was Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General., Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Robert W. Kenny, O. John Rogge, and Andrew D. Weinberger for the National Lawyers Guild; and Arthur Garfield Hays and Osmond K. Fraenkel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Cases that cite this one

78 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Perez v. Sharp (Cal. 1948)
Norris v. State Council of Higher Education (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1971)
Carr v. Corning, Superintendent of Public Schools Browne Junior High School Parent-Teacher Ass'n v. Magdeburger (D.C. Cir. 1950)
Faulkner v. Jones (4th Cir. 1995)
Faulkner v. Jones (4th Cir. 1995)
State Ex Rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control (Fla. 1957)
State Ex Rel. Hawkins v. Board of Control of Florida (Fla. 1950)
Fisher v. Hurst (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (4th Cir. 2001)
Kenneth Adams v. Terrel H. Bell, Individually, and as Secretary of the Department of Education (D.C. Cir. 1983)
Ruth Booker, an Infant, by Dovie Booker, Her Mother and Next Friend v. State of Tennessee Board of Education (6th Cir. 1957)
Browder v. Gayle (United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama 1956)
Board of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College v. Tureaud (5th Cir. 1953)
Briggs v. Elliott (District Court, E.D. South Carolina 1951)
Gray v. University of Tennessee (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1951)
Corbin v. County School Board of Pulaski County, Va. (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1949)
Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (4th Cir. 2001)
Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell (Supreme Court of the United States 1991)
United States v. Com. of Va. (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1991)
Knight v. State of Ala. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 1991)
United States v. Virginia (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1991)
Ex Parte Grubbs (Ala. 1989)
Grubbs v. Alabama State Bar (Ala. 1989)
Geier v. University Of Tennessee (6th Cir. 1979)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On January 14, 1946, the petitioner, a Negro, concededly qualified to receive the professional legal education offered by the State, applied for admission to the School of Law of the University of Oklahoma, the only institution for legal education supported and maintained by the taxpayers of the State of Oklahoma. Petitioner’s application for admission was denied, solely because of her color.

Petitioner then made application for a writ of mandamus in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. The writ of mandamus was refused, and the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 199 Okla. 36, 180 P. 2d 135. We brought the case here for review.

The petitioner is entitled to secure legal education afforded by a state institution. To this time, it has been denied her although during the same period many *633 white applicants have been afforded legal education by the State. The State must provide it for her in conformity with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and provide it as soon as it does for applicants of any other group. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938).

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.