In 1951 a case was brought against the Board of Education in Topeka Kansas, claiming that segregation was wrong and it needed to be stopped. The main man behind the Lawsuit was Oliver …show more content…
It was found that segregated school were detrimental to African American children. It was causing them to mentally put themselves down, leading to lack of self confidence and self worth. The court also said that the black schools and the white schools were equal in almost every way, and there was no reason to fix it. One of the claims a parents attempted to make was that the schools were not equal and that the Black schools were clearly underfunded, But the court investigated, and found that statement to be false in their area. The court made the comment that the white schools didn’t get free transportation to school, while at the black school, the bus was free to all the students who needed it. Basically there claim was the school may be different, but they were equal. Losing the battle at the district court was heartbreaking, but the group kept …show more content…
"The Case of Brown v. Board of Education as heard before the Supreme Court combined five cases: Brown itself, Briggs v. Elliott (filed in South Carolina), Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (filed in Virginia), Gebhart v. Belton (filed in Delaware), and Bolling v. Sharpe (filed in Washington D.C.).". Because the cases were combined it made the court case even more important. The chief Justice assigned to this case was Earl Warren. All 5 of the smaller cases were shot down in their district courts, but when it was moved to the supreme court, things changed. The main problem was that nobody wanted to step out of line when it came to arguing over what was constitutional and what was not. Because of the 14 amendment, they couldn't really make a decision so they pushed the court date back till fall. The first section of the declaration of Independence claims "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". To easily sum i up, the court didn't want