Sweatt+v.+Painter

=Sweatt v. Painter= 339 U.S. 629 (1950)

This case was decided simultaneously with the sister case //McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents//.

Plaintiff, Sweatt, applied to the University of Texas Law School, and was denied admission only because he was black. Sweatt then brought this case as a mandamus action, to compel the law school to admit him. There was no public law school in Texas that would admit African Americans.

In the initial round of litigation, the trial court found an equal protection violation, since Texas provided a law school for whites and none for blacks. However, the court allowed Texas six months to equalize the opportunities it provided to both races. Texas quickly threw together some semblance of a "law school" for Sweatt and other African Americans to attend. Once it did, the trial court found "equality," and any further relief for Sweatt was denied.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court looked for "substantial equality" between the University of Texas law school and the law school that Texas proposed for blacks. It noted a number of advantages that the University of Texas provided, features which were not nearly matched by the black law school:
 * An independent faculty; the UT Law School had a faculty renowned and respected professors
 * A student body of 850
 * A library containing over 65,000 volumes
 * Law review, moot court facilities and competition, scholarships, Order of the Coif
 * UT's alumni were very well positioned in the state, both in key positions and broadly in many cities
 * UT's Law School was ranked among the top in the nation, while the proposed law school was not accredited

During the pendency of appeal to the Supreme Court, Texas State University had opened a law school for blacks that was slightly better than the one originally proposed for Sweatt, but the above factors were still sorely lacking in comparison to UT.

It was not just objective factors that contributed to the quality of the UT Law School. The Court found that "[w]hat is more important, the University of Texas Law School possesses to a far greater degree those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school. . . . It is difficult to believe that one who had a free choice between these law schools would consider the question close."

The Court stressed that the law is a practical profession. Isolation (specifically, segregation) removes the opportunity for exchange of ideas and viewpoints. It is also impractical when the law school for blacks excludes racial groups comprising 85% of the state's population and constituting the large majority of the peers with which graduating students would interact as members of the bar.

Because the law schools were not equal, contrary to the Texas's arguments, //Plessy v. Ferguson// did not control. "Separate but equal" cannot justify a result if there is no equality. However, also because there was no equality, the Court also had no occasion to reexamine the //Plessy// standard. Sweatt could be granted relief without considering the question.

This was the first case in which the Supreme Court ordered a white university to admit a black student.