Wednesday Writs: Lloyed Gaines Fights the Power Edition
L1: In the annals of American legal history, 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education is likely tied with Roe v. Wade for most famous SCOTUS cases, and certainly tops the list in civil rights cases. Brown, of course, struck down segregated schools and overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which had established the unfair and unworkable doctrine of “separate but equal.” However, while the significance of Brown cannot be overstated, a lesser-known predecessor from thirty years prior deserves some attention.
Lloyed Gaines was a black man from Mississippi, living in segregated Missouri. In 1935, he graduated from Lincoln University, an all-black college. Lincoln had no law school, so Gaines applied to the University of Missouri School of Law- which did not admit African Americans. According to the state law at the time, if no law school in the state would agree to accept Gaines, then Lincoln University was obliged to pay out of state tuition to a school that would accept him and provide an equivalent legal education to that of UM. Gaines was refused admission to law school at UM, on the grounds that his admission would be “contrary to the constitution, laws and public policy of the State to admit a negro as a student in the University of Missouri.” Gaines filed suit for violating his constitutional rights by denying him admission based on his race.
The state’s laws and its constitution provide for separate but equal public schools through high school but made no mention of higher education. The state court, however, reviewed the statutes and determined their intent was to maintain segregated colleges and beyond, as well. The statute which required Lincoln University to pay for out of state education where it could not offer the same program was determined proof of the intent to separate the races beyond high school. The court thus found that the refusal to admit Gaines was in accordance with state law and, further, did not amount to discrimination because of the provision of tuition to out of state schools. The state patted itself on the back for its creation of Lincoln University, deeming itself a “pioneer” in equal education.
Lloyd Gaines appealed, and the ruling in our case of the week, Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada was announced on December 12, 1938. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
The majority agreed that it was real nice of the state of Missouri to establish a university just for African Americans, but nevertheless took issue with the complete lack of legal education available to black Missourians within the state’s borders. Hughes wrote “that the State excludes negroes from the advantages of the law school it has established at the University of Missouri.” Notably, the state of Maryland had already dealt with essentially the same facts and the appeals court had issued a mandamus to order the University of Maryland to admit black students to its law school.
Missouri argued that because there was a “legislative declaration” of intent to create a law school at Lincoln “whenever necessary and practical”, and had created a scholarship program to fill in the gaps until such time as a sufficient number of black students decided they wanted to become lawyers.
The Court found this an inadequate effort for providing an “equal” legal education to black students. The state’s lawyers argued that the statute which required Lincoln to establish a law school “whenever necessary and practical” meant that Gaines needed only to alert Lincoln’s curators that he desired a legal education, and the university would have been obliged to establish a law school. The Court did not read the statute as creating this mandate, but rather leaving it to the school’s discretion to decide when it was “necessary and practical.” Chief Justice Hughes quoted the lower court’s opinion, which also found the creation of a law school at Lincoln to be within the discretion of its curators:
The statute was enacted in 1921. Since its enactment, no negro, not even appellant, has applied to Lincoln University for a law education. This fact demonstrates the wisdom of the legislature in leaving it to the judgment of the board of curators to determine when it would be necessary or practicable to establish a law school for negroes at Lincoln University. Pending that time, adequate provision is made for the legal education of negroes in the university of some adjacent State, as heretofore pointed out.
The Court opined that the failure of the University to establish a law school due to the interest of a single student was not an abuse of its discretion. The real question for the Court was whether the out-of-state tuition grant was sufficient to protect Gaines’ rights (such as they were, at the time.)
Indeed, four states adjacent to Missouri had law schools that accepted black students: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois, all of which the state court found to be of equally high standing as UM (more so, I’d argue, based on their admission policies alone.) Further, argued the state, the schools taught the same subjects and used the same books to do so. Gaines argued that for one intending to practice law in Missouri, attending law school in Missouri had advantages that would be lost by attending an out of state school, such as its prestige among his prospective clients, the opportunity to observe local courts, and, of course, the study of Missouri law, unlikely to be taught at Kansas.
Hughes disregarded these arguments as being beside the point. “The basic consideration is not as to what sort of opportunities other States provide, or whether they are as good as those in Missouri, but as to what opportunities Missouri itself furnishes to white students and denies to negroes solely upon the ground of color,” wrote Hughes. “By the operation of the laws of Missouri, a privilege has been created for white law students which is denied to negroes by reason of their race. The white resident is afforded legal education within the State; the negro resident having the same qualifications is refused it there, and must go outside the State to obtain it. That is a denial of the equality of legal right to the enjoyment of the privilege which the State has set up, and the provision for the payment of tuition fees in another State does not remove the discrimination.”
Turning to the state’s argument that the lack of demand for legal education by black students mitigated its obligation to provide such opportunity in state, the Court was likewise unpersuaded. The Court referred to a previous case out of Oklahoma, McCabe v. Atchison, in which a rail carrier cited the lack of black patrons as relieving their obligation to provide dining facilities for them. In McCabe the Court ruled that “the essence of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law is that it is a personal one, and does not depend upon the number of persons affected.”
The Court did not obliterate the odious “separate but equal” doctrine; it did not make any finding that Missouri’s law and practice of segregation was unconstitutional or even wrong. However, the Court did assert that the remedy Gaines was entitled to was that be admitted to the University of Missouri School of Law or that the state establish a separate law school. Had Lincoln had a law school, or had there been some other blacks-only law school in the state for him to attend, the Court likely would not have taken issue with the refusal of UM to admit the plaintiff.
It was a small step, a very small step, toward the eventual barrier-breaking Brown decision. But even this was not a unanimous decision; Justice McReynolds dissented, believing that the state would dismantle its law school rather than permit Gaines to attend:
For a long time, Missouri has acted upon the view that the best interest of her people demands separation of whites and negroes in schools. Under the opinion just announced, I presume she may abandon her law school, and thereby disadvantage her white citizens without improving petitioner’s opportunities for legal instruction; or she may break down the settled practice concerning separate schools and thereby, as indicated by experience, damnify both races.
In the end, Missouri did not disband its law school at UM, nor did it grant Gaines admission. Instead, it began the process to quickly establish a law school at Lincoln University the following year. Lloyd Gaines lived in a fraternity house in Chicago, gave an occasional speech, and worked odd jobs while he awaited the law school’s opening; meanwhile the NAACP prepared another law suit to challenge segregation. He left the house one night in March of 1939, three months after the Supreme Court decision, and was never seen again.
The University of Missouri integrated in 1950. Gaines’ story inspired other black Americans, such as Lucile Bluford, to fight against segregation, and his case was cited in Brown in 1954, when integration became the law of the land. In 2000, the University of Missouri renamed its black culture center after Lloyd Gaines, and in 2006 it awarded him a posthumous honorary juris doctorate.
His disappearance remains a mystery to this day.
L2: A federal judge invalidates a Florida law requiring full payment of all fines, fees, and restitution before allowing felons to vote, calling the provision a poll tax.
L3: Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer vows legal action after a catastrophic dam failure, citing maintenance neglect.
L4: Elon Musk and girlfriend Grimes are forced by the state of California to change their baby’s ridiculous name to something slightly less ridiculous.
L6: A Dutch family feud over Facebook photos will test Europe’s online privacy laws
L7: A US District Court opinion discards New York’s East Ramapo School Board’s method for electing board members, agreeing with the NAACP’s claim that their current plan is unfair to blacks and Latinos.
L8: Dumb criminal of the week should be renamed the adventures of Florida Man: Florida Man charged with bioterrorism for coughing on and spitting at police while pretending to be infected with COVID-19.
L7: Isn’t that the city Kazzy has talked about in the past?
L3: Sometimes, I’d like a story about an infrastructure failure that actually talked more about the financial and engineering issues at play. I am well and truly jaded when it comes to the people who live along a major waterway who suffer flooding.Report
L1: Gaines was part of the NAACP’s long strategy and road to Brown v. Board of Ed. They explicitly started at the top and worked all the way down until it got to elementary school.Report
There’s a novel to be written about what ultimately happened to Gaines. It may well be a horrific novel.Report
L4 – Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
But, somehow, this must be covered under the FUTY clause…Report
This has nothing to do with speech restrictions. You can name your baby whatever you want and tweet about it all day long. The government just won’t issue vital records for names that don’t conform to their database schema.Report
“The government just won’t issue…”
Government… Won’t issue…Report
Without addressing the freedom of speech issue, I’ll quote from TFA: “A-12 = precursor to SR-17 (our favorite aircraft)”. That’s the SR-71, not the SR-17, dumbasses. The SR-71 of particular and personal importance to me because of strong family connections with the SR-71 program throughout most of my youth.
One wonders what X Æ A-Xii will think of his name as he grows older. It’s difficult for me to imagine him liking it and easy for me to imagine him changing it to something more conventional shortly after assuming adulthood.
I don’t think his parents are doing him any favors by way of the unusual name. Should they be free to do so anyway because, after all, my opinion counts for nothing in this matter?
I’ve already exhausted my interest in the subject, tbqh.Report
L5 – I assume that the open-book part will bite them in the future. This is related to Jaybird’s quote in a comment on today’s Brigg’s post: “You’re not always going to have an encyclopedia in your pocket.” Well, yes, you are going to carry an entire law library in your pocket all the time.Report
I screwed that up.
It would have been more accurate to joke “you’re not always going to be in a room that has an encyclopedia in it!”Report
But “in your pocket” is the better contemporary version, given smart phones.Report
Not to mention probably more than half of the practice of law involves finding the answer rather than knowing the answer. And open book might help you find the law or concept; applying it to the facts is the part that matters. I’m ok with the open book test thing.Report
Not just law, pretty much any advanced discipline. How many times in my career(s) have I heard or said, “I don’t know the answer, but I know where to look it up.” Or for more complicated or obscure things, how to look it up.Report
The ability to apply a principle (law, thermodynamics, whathaveyou) is the important part. And yes, people getting stuck looking up the wrong thing is a huge chunk of the challenge here.
Also, the sign of a bad interviewer is someone fixated on the particulars of something, as opposed to the process.Report
On the other hand when you are in court, you always should have notes and materials in front of you.Report
What Saul said. I always make sure to have a list of relevant cases when going to court that I can look at it if I need to cite something.Report
I’m a recent bar examinee, having had to take the Oregon bar as my 25-year-old California license did not permit me to waive into the bar after I moved here. Based on that experience, I rather doubt that having an open book is going to make any material difference on the bar exam or its efficacy in identifying people who possess the minimal competency to practice law that the bar exam purportedly measures.
What the bar exam really tests for is the ability to spot a legal issue, articulate the legal rule applicable to that issue, resolve that issue logically based upon the given facts, and express those things in the required format, under pretty intense time pressure resulting from the sheer volume of material on the test. It does this with a series of essay questions intentionally jam-packed with complex legal issues to resolve. It also does this in a battery of multiple-choice questions for which the examinee has, on average, 108 seconds per question to answer. And it’s graded on a curve.
On the multiple choice questions, seems to me if you’re spending more than about ten seconds looking up the answer to verify that your instinct is correct, you’re simply not going to finish the test.
On the essay questions, an open book might help with some of the more obscure and technical things like the rather large loopholes in the general prohibition against the prosecution using character evidence (see FRE 404(b)(2)). Easy to forget many of the various laundry lists or different statuses of will and estate contests so with the right kind of question the open book can help the examinee come up with a complete answer. But to the extent that the questions touch on such things that are easy to forget because of the complexity of the concept, the curve will just shift accordingly.
You either spot the issue, or you don’t. If you don’t spot the issue, having access to the rule about that issue doesn’t matter because you never reach that point.
Having access to the black letter rule is only useful if you already have at least some idea of 1) where it is in the material you’re going to use to look it up so you can access it quickly, and 2) what you’re going to do with it intellectually once you have it. Which means you need to understand the rule in at least general terms before you look it up; looking it up will only keep the details correct (if the details even matter, which mostly they won’t).Report
Not to mention that most law school exams are open-book.Report
Really? I remember my IP exam being open book, but I don’t think most of mine were. I know evidence wasn’t.Report
It’s been a long time, but IIRC the multiple-choice questions used to have a significant “best answer” emphasis. More than one answer may be correct, but one is relatively better (and it may be Answer D, which includes Answers A and C, but not B). Seems like that was the kind of thing people complained about.
But to the larger point, a question might require you to look up more than one topic.Report
L7: “District lawyers argued that the outcome of recent elections had nothing to do with race but owed to Orthodox Jewish voters who want to keep property taxes low while making sure private school students receive state-mandated busing.”
Allowing people to segregate themselves from their community at taxpayer expense is not a good use of those funds.Report