A Thin Line Between Right and Wrong

In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

The plaintiff, Mr. Heman Sweatt, attempted to overturn the “separate but equal” doctrine of racial discrimination. The United States Supreme Court declared that the “separate but equal” doctrine is unconstitutional and discriminatory because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Gelber 89).

Even though the case, which involved the University of Texas and four years later helped clear the way for Brown v. Board of Education, is still regarded as a landmark case, it is rarely discussed. (Hsu).

Heman Sweatt, a 33-year-old African-American mail carrier from Houston, Texas, pursued admission at the University of Texas School of Law but was rejected solely due to his race, as the school was reserved for only the whites. The President of the University, Theophilus Shickel Painter, received a letter about Sweatt’s application from a Texas Attorney General. In his rebuttal to the Attorney General that wanted to know his opinion, Painter wrote: “This applicant is a citizen of Texas and duly qualified for admission into the Law School at the University of Texas, save and except for the fact that he is a Negro.” Needless to say, Sweatt sued the university in the state court seeking an injunction to force the University to admit him. The court acknowledged that Sweatt had been denied the right to equal protection but could not issue an injunction to force the University to admit him. Instead, the court continued the suit up to 1947, when a separate but equal school of law for Negroes was established in the Texas State University (Oyez).

The trial court offered Sweatt an opportunity at the University of the State of Texas Law School

Arguing that it offered separate but substantially equal opportunities like those offered by the University of Texas law school. Sweatt declined the opportunity and sought relief from the appellate court but was denied, and a ruling made in favor of the law school. His application for a writ of error in the Supreme Court of Texas in 1948 was refused, and he moved to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1950 (Gelber 89). The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the court’s decision through a unanimous decision authored by Chief Justice Fred Vinson decision in favor of Sweatt, arguing that though the State of Texas did not provide Sweatt with opportunities that were “substantially equal” to those offered to White students. According to the ruling, the State University of Texas was inferior in terms of size, facilities, quality of degree among other factors. Based on identified inequalities in educational opportunities, the Supreme Court issued an injunction to force the State of Texas to admit Heman Sweatt in the Law School (Oyez).

The Sweatt v. Painter (1950) was clearly a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

The clause provides that states should not deny individuals the equal protection of the laws. By providing separate law schools for blacks and whites, the Texas court system was denying the blacks equal protection of the law solely because of their race, to which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, revealing a paradigm change in the Supreme Court’s views on race and civil rights. This case is specially significant to state courts as it ruled that the ’separate but equal’ doctrine is indeed discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. It is specially relevant to the state of Texas owing to its racially wealthy demographics as it forms the precedent that should be followed while making judgments that have the potential to discriminate individuals based on their race, religion, gender among other demographic characteristics (Gelber 101).

In retrospection, the Sweatt v. Painter (1950) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the “separate but equal” doctrine of racial discrimination

Where the plaintiff, Heman Sweatt had been denied an opportunity at the University of Texas School of law solely due to his race. The Supreme Court ruled in Sweatt’s favor, declaring the “separate but equal” doctrine discriminatory. The case is important as it forms the precedent that should be followed while passing judgments especially pertinent to any form of discrimination. Apart from the Brown v. Board of Education case, the other case where the Sweatt v. Painter case helped include Plessy v. Ferguson.

In remembrance of Sweatt, each year, the University of Texas holds the annual Heman Marion Sweatt Symposium on Civil Rights

In the year 2005, the Travis City Courthouse, which is the first place where Sweatt filed his case, was renamed in his honor (Hsu). Though the Sweatt v. Painter case happened more than sixty years ago, to date, in the modern times it remains one of the most significant constitutional laws cases. The case is a critical element of the University of Texas fabric today. It is a great reference point especially for the black students at the university in terms of how much progress has been made with regards to race relations.

Works Cited

Oyez. “Sweatt v. Painter.” Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. 2016. Web. Jun 22, 2016.

Gelber, Scott M. Courtrooms and Classrooms: A Legal History of College Access, 1860-1960., 2016. Print.

Hsu, A. (2012, October 10). ’Sweatt V. Painter’: Nearly Forgotten, But Landmark Texas Integration Case. Retrieved from NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/10/10/162650487/sweatt-vs-texas-nearly-forgotten-but-landmark-integration-case