Bolling v. Sharpe
Citation and Court
347 U.S. 497 (1954). United States Supreme Court. Chief Justice Warren, writing for a unanimous Court. Decided the same day as Brown v. Board of Education.
Facts
Spottswood Thomas Bolling Jr. and other Black students were denied admission to John Philip Sousa Junior High School in Washington, D.C. — a segregated public school — based solely on their race. Because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave and not a state, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause — which applies only to states — did not directly apply. The case was argued alongside the five cases comprising Brown v. Board of Education and decided on the same day.
Issue
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibit racial segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia, even though the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause does not apply to the federal government?
Holding
Yes. Racial segregation in the District of Columbia’s public schools violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The federal government cannot maintain a system of racial segregation in public schools that would be constitutionally forbidden to the states.
Rule / Doctrine
Reverse Incorporation (Equal Protection into Fifth Amendment Due Process): Although the Fifth Amendment contains no Equal Protection Clause, the concept of equal protection is embodied in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process guarantee. The Court held it unthinkable that the Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the federal government than on the states regarding racial segregation. This reasoning “reverse incorporated” equal protection principles into the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against federal deprivation of liberty without due process.
Significance
Bolling v. Sharpe ensured that Brown v. Board of Education applied to the nation’s capital by reading equal protection principles into the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause — a doctrinal move sometimes called “reverse incorporation.” Without Bolling, the federal government would have been constitutionally free to maintain segregated schools in D.C. while states were prohibited from doing so. The case is foundational to the principle that the federal government is bound by substantive equality norms equivalent to those imposed on states under the Fourteenth Amendment.