Klarman speaks on landmark Supreme Court case

By Justin L. Hart
News Editor

      University of Virginia law professor Michael J. Klarman presented the Seventh Annual Bell Distinguish Lectureship in Law, entitled, “Why Brown v. Board of Education Was a Hard Case,” on Monday, April 26 at 8 p.m. in Lean Lecture Room of Wishart Hall.
     Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was the U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously declared the racial segregation of public schools unconstitutional.  “I’m going to talk about why Brown was a hard case for the justices,” Klarman said. “The justices were deeply divided.”
     “They would love for Congress to solve this problem,” he said. “There is zero chance that Congress will do that.” Anti-segregation legislation had been introduced in Congress in the past, but it could not succeed because of the white Southern Democrats’ control of the Senate.  “It’s all passed the House, but it’s filibustered to death in the Senate,” Klarman said.
      He distributed to the audience copies of a transcript of the notes taken during Brown deliberations by Justice William O. Douglas. The transcript mentioned each justice and their remarks. Klarman used this transcript as an aide to his presentation, commenting on the different justices and their backgrounds and positions.
     Klarman explained which justices he thought had originally supported each of the three positions on the Brown case.
     He maintained that four of the justices — Black, Douglas, Burton and Minton — wanted to overturn school segregation; that two—Reed and Chief Justice Vinson — opposed doing so; and three — Jackson, Frankfurter and for a time, Clark — were undecided.
     The U.S. Supreme Court requires five justices to support a decision for it to be a majority ruling, so the desegregationists were one justice short. Then a dramatic shift in the case occurred during the course of the year.
     “Chief Justice Vinson dies suddenly of a heart attack,” said Klarman. “Now the Court’s in need of a new chief justice.” Then-President Dwight Eisenhower has a few different people to choose from, including not only current Court members but also Earl Warren, the governor of California and a political contributor. “Ultimately, he gave it to Warren,” Klarman said.
     “The conventional story is that Warren gets a lot of credit for the Court’s unanimity,” he said. “I think he’s responsible for the outcome.”
     Although this appointment would cement the Brown case’s overturning of school segregation, this was not Eisenhower’s intention, since the President thought desegregation was a bad idea. “Eisenhower is not trying to gerrymander the decision in Brown,” said Klarman.
     Now, there were only two justices who were undecided. “Frankfurter and Jackson held the collective outcome in their hands,” said Klarman.” They thought segregation was evil ... I think Brown, for them, was a conflict between their personal views and their legal principles.”
      Once a majority on the Court came to support overturning school segregation, it was decided to reduce the potential for white-supremacist protests against the decision by making it unanimous.
      “They don’t want to give the white Southerners anything to latch onto,” Klarman said.
      “The justices are afraid that if there is such a dissent, it will only be ammunition for the white South.”
      Brown v. Board of Education was decided before the civil-rights movement of the following decade caught nationwide attention.
      “Brown becomes iconic and the Court gets all the credit,” said Klarman.

Print this Article   |   Close this Page