State of Missouri Ex Rel. Gaines v. Canada 305 U.S. 337 (1938)



FACTS:

·         A Black student sued after being turned down for admission to a law school.

·         Judge ruled that the pupil’s right to equal protection under the law was not violated.

·         To get the law school to admit him, the student filed a mandamus case.

·         Student claimed that his constitutional rights have been violated by prejudice and he maintained that attending the university that he had registered had distinct benefits for anyone planning to practice law in Missouri.

 

ISSUE(S):

Is it legal to deny admission to a Black applicant to law school?

 

LEGAL DECISION:

The court found that denying Black students in Missouri the chance to continue a legal education constituted a violation of their legal right to take advantage of a privilege that the State had established. The court also concluded that paying tuition in that other States did not end discrimination. The student was found to be entitled to equal protection under the law, and the state was required to protect him within the state’s boundaries according to the court’s ruling. The court concluded that the petitioner had a right to admission to the state university’s law school in the lack of any suitable arrangements for his legal education. The ruling of the lower court was overturned and remanded by the court.

 

LEGAL RATIONABLE:

A guarantee of the protection of equal laws is the equal protection of the laws. The state can only fulfill its duty to provide equal protection under the law where its laws are in effect, or in its territory. The equality of legal rights must be preserved there. The United States Constitution places that responsibility on the individual states as governmental units, with each one in charge of its laws defining the rights and obligations of those who live inside its borders. It is a responsibility that cannot be passed from one state to another, and no state is exempt from fulfilling it because of what this other state may or not do. The core of statehood upheld under the double system of governance is that each state has responsibility within its realm. It is implausible to conclude that demanding the use of chances outside might justify behavior that would otherwise be illegal discrimination regarding the legal right to enjoy opportunities within the States. While it might lessen the discrimination’s inconvenience it cannot justify it.