Briggs v. Elliot,
Complaint against Segregated South Carolina Schools

View Image

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2657

F I L E D
DEC 22 1950
ERNEST L. ALLEN
Q. D. Q. U. S. E. D. S. Q. [?]

HARRY BRIGGS, Jr., THOMAS LEE BRIGGS and
KATHERINE BRIGGS, infants, by HARRY
BRIGGS, their father and next friend
and THOMAS GAMBLE, an infant by
HARRY BRIGGS, his guardian and next
friend,

WILLIAM GIBSON, Jr., MAXINE GIBSON,
HAROLD GIBSON and JULIA ANN GIBSON,
Infants, by ANNE GIBSON, their
Mother and next friend,

MITCHEL OLIVER and RICHARD ALLEN OLIVER,
infants, by MOSE OLIVER, their
father and next friend,

CELESTINE PARSON, an infant by
BENNIE PARSON, her father and
next friend,

SHIRLEY RAGIN and DELORES RAGIN,
infants, by EDWARD RAGIN, their
father and next friend,

GLEN RAGIN, an infant, by
WILLAIM RAGIN, his father and
next friend,

ELANE RICHARDSON and EMANUEL
RICHARDSON, infants, by LUCHRISHER
RICHARDSON, their father and
Next friend,

JAMES RICHARDSON, CHARLES RICHARDSON,
DOROTHY RICHARDSON and JACKSON
Jey[?] RICHARDSON, infants, by LEE
RICHARDSON, their father and
next friend,

DANIEL BENNETT, JOHN BENNETT and
CLIFTON BENNETT, infants, by
JAMES H. BENNETT, their father
and next friend,

LOUIS OLIVER, Jr., an infant, by
MARY OLIVER, his mother and next
friend,

GARDENEIA STUKES, WILLIE M. STUKES,
Jr., and LOUIS W. STUKES, infants
by WILLIE M. STUKES, their father
and next friend,

JOE NATHAN HENRY, CHARLES R. HENRY,
EDDIE LEE HENRY and PHYLLIS A.
HENRY, infants, by G.H. HENRY,
their father and next friend,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1

[Page 2]

in the enforcement and execution of such constitutional provisions and statutes as will appear more fully hereinafter.

2.  This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment under Title 28, United States Code, section 2201, for the purpose of determining questions in actual controversy between the parties, to wit:

(a)  The question whether Article II, section 7 of the Constitution of South Carolina (1895) and section 5377 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina of 1942 which prohibit infant plaintiffs from attending the only public schools of Clarendon County, South Carolina affording an education equal to that afforded all over qualified students who are not Negroes and which force said plaintiffs to attend segregated public elementary and secondary schools set apart for Negroes is said Cla rendon County, South Carolina are unconstitutional and void as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(b)  The question whether the policy, custom, practice and usage of defendants, and each of them, in denying on account of race and color, the infant plaintiffs and other Jey [?] Negro children of public school age residing in Clarendon County, South Carolina, educational opportunities, advantages and facilities in the public elementary and secondary schools of Clarendon County, South Carolina, including those hereinafter specified, equal to the educational opportunities, advantages and facilities afforded and available to white children of public school age, similarly situated, is unconstitutional and void, as being a denial of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(c)  The question whether the policy, custom, practice and usage of defendants, and each of them, in denying on

-4-

[Page 3]

8. Plaintiffs further pray that the Court will allow them their costs herein and such further, other or additional relief as may appear to the Court to be equitable and just.

Harold R. Boulware
Harold R. Boulware
1109 ½ Washington Street
Columbia, S. C.

Robert L Carter
Robert L. Carter

Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall
20 West 40th Street
New York 18, N. Y.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

DATED: December 19, 1950

Jey [?]
14

-14-

 

Note: Question marks represent illegible text.

.