Lee v. Washington
Cases that cite this one
324 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Johnson v. California (Supreme Court of the United States 2005)
- Garrison S. Johnson v. State of California James H. Gomez, Director, Department of Corrections James Rowland (9th Cir. 2003)
- Jamel Walker v. James H. Gomez Kingston W. Prunty R.R. Rath, Correctional Sergeant (9th Cir. 2004)
- Marvin Jones, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Fred R. Diamond, Etc. (5th Cir. 1979)
- Eugene Stewart v. William Winter, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Mississippi (5th Cir. 1982)
- Marvin Jones, on His Own Behalf and on Behalf of Those Similarly Situated v. Fred R. Diamond (5th Cir. 1981)
- Garrick Harrington v. A. Scribner (9th Cir. 2015)
- Brown v. Kelly (2d Cir. 2010)
- Garrison S. Johnson v. State of California James H. Gomez, Director, Department of Corrections James Rowland (9th Cir. 2003)
- Marcera v. Chinlund (2d Cir. 1979)
- Marcera v. Chinlund (2d Cir. 1979)
- Charles Thomas v. Warden Frank J. Pate, Luther W. Miller v. Illinois Dept. Of Correction, Illinois State Penitentiary, Warden Frank j.pate (7th Cir. 1974)
- White v. Morris (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1993)
- United States v. Wyandotte County, Kansas (10th Cir. 1973)
- Hernandez v. Cate (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2013)
- Smith v. Coughlin (District Court, S.D. New York 1983)
- Onishea v. Hopper (11th Cir. 1997)
- Buckley v. Gomez (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1997)
- Buckley v. Gomez (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1997)
- Sockwell v. Phelps (5th Cir. 1994)
- Jordan v. Gardner (9th Cir. 1993)
- Johnson v. Meehan (Conn. 1993)
- Willie Williams, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Michael P. Lane, Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (7th Cir. 1988)
- In re Arias (Cal. 1986)
- Hayes Williams and Arthur Mitchell v. David C. Treen, Governor of the State of Louisiana (5th Cir. 1982)
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
LEE, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS OF ALABAMA, ET AL.
v.
WASHINGTON ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
Nicholas S. Hare, Special Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General, Gordon Madison, Assistant Attorney General, and J. M. Breckenridge.
Charles Morgan, Jr., argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Orzell Billingsley, Jr., and Melvin L. Wulf.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal challenges a decree of a three-judge District Court declaring that certain Alabama statutes violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they require segregation of the races in prisons and jails, and establishing a schedule for desegregation of these institutions. The State's contentions that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which relates to class actions, was violated in this case and that the challenged statutes are not unconstitutional are without merit. The remaining contention of the State is that the specific orders directing desegregation of prisons and *334 jails make no allowance for the necessities of prison security and discipline, but we do not so read the "Order, Judgment and Decree" of the District Court, which when read as a whole we find unexceptionable.
The judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, and MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.
In joining the opinion of the Court, we wish to make explicit something that is left to be gathered only by implication from the Court's opinion. This is that prison authorities have the right, acting in good faith and in particularized circumstances, to take into account racial tensions in maintaining security, discipline, and good order in prisons and jails. We are unwilling to assume that state or local prison authorities might mistakenly regard such an explicit pronouncement as evincing any dilution of this Court's firm commitment to the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition of racial discrimination.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.