Barr v. City of Columbia

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Barr v. City of Columbia
ArgueDateA=October 14
ArgueDateB=15
ArgueYear=1963
DecideDate=June 22
DecideYear=1964
FullName=Charles F. Barr, et al. v. City of Columbia
USVol=378
USPage=146
Citation=12 L. Ed.d 766, 84 S. Ct. 1734
Prior=239 S.C. 395, 123 S.E.2d 521, affirmed conviction
Subsequent=
Holding=The state breach of peace convictions could not stand as there was no evidence to support them, and the criminal trespass convictions were reversed for the reasons stated in "Bouie v. City of Columbia".
SCOTUS=1962-1965
Majority=Black
JoinMajority=Warren, Brennan, White, Clark, Stewart, Goldberg, Douglas
Concurrence=Douglas
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=Goldberg, Warren
Dissent=Black
JoinDissent=Harlan, White
LawsApplied=

"Barr v. Columbia", 378 U.S. 146 (1964), [ussc|378|146|Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the convictions of five African Americans who were refused service at a lunch counter of a department store based upon a prior Court decision, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support a breach of peace conviction and that criminal trespass convictions would be reversed for the reasons stated in another case that was decided that same day, "Bouie v. City of Columbia", 378 U.S. 347 (1964). "Bouie" held that retroactive application of expanded construction of a criminal statute was barred by due process of ex post facto laws.

Background

Five African American college sudents went to a department store in Columbia, South Carolina, and sat down at its lunch counter and waited for service. The department store allowed persons of all races to use all facilities except for the lunch counter, which served whites only. The store manager has arranged for police to be present for any sit-in demonstrators, and then, consistent with the restaurant's policy of refusing service to blacks, the restaurant manager requested the persons to leave. When they refused, they were arrested for breach of peace and criminal trespass. At trial the defendants their arrest, prosecution, and conviction by the state for requesting service at a restaurant that refused service to African Americans would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court convicted the students, and the Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed in an unreported decision.

Court's Decision

The Supreme Court first considered the breach of peace convictions and noted that the students had simply remained sitting at the lunch counter when asked by the manager to leave. The State had argued that the students simply remaining could cause others to breach the peace when they saw the students. The Court rejected that argument, and did not find that the evidence supported a breach of peace conviction, and reversed.

Regarding the trespass convictions, the majority opinion by Justice Black did not reach the broad question posed by the defendants as to "whether the Fourteenth Amendment of its own force forbids a State to arrest and prosecute those who, having been asked to leave a restaurant because of their color, refuse to do so." [378 U.S. at 155] Instead, the Court considered its ruling in "Bouie v. City of Columbia", which had been announced the same day, which found that the South Carolina Supreme Court had expanded the scope of acts that were covered under its criminal trespass statute. The Supreme Court om that case held that retroactive application of this expanded scope violated due process as an ex post facto law, and the "Barr" decision references that decision for its holding.

The concurring opinion of Justice Douglas simply stated that he would reverse based upon his opinions in "Bell v. Maryland", 378 U.S. 226 (1964), another case involving a sit-in demonstration by African American students that was announced the same day as the "Barr" decision. Justice Goldberg, joined by Chief Justice Warren, stated that they would reverse for the reasons stated in the majority opinion in "Bell". Justices Black, Harlan, and White stated that they dessented for the same reasons stated in their "Bouie" dessent, that the actions in the restaurant did not constitute state action.

Critical response

"Barr v. City of Columbia" was one of five cases involving segregation protests decided on June 22, 1964. The other four cases were "Griffin v. Maryland", 378 U.S. 130 (1964), "Robinson v. Florida", 378 U.S. 153 (1964), "Bouie v. City of Columbia", and "Bell v. Maryland". In none of these cases did the Supreme Court reach the merits of any argument addressing whether private actions of segregation which are enforced by state courts constituted a state action which violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.cite journal|last=Webster|first=McKenzie|title=The Warren Court's Struggle With the Sit-In Cases and the Constitutionality of Segregation in Places of Public Accommodations|journal=Journal of Law and Politics|volume=17|issue=|pages=373–407|year=2001 |url= |accessdate= ] These decisions were announced two days after the Senate ended a filibuster and passed the bill which would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation in public accommodations. It has been suggested that the Supreme Court refrained from reaching the merits in these cases in consideration of the Act, had it done so it would have eliminated the basis for passage of the Act.

ee also

*African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)
*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 378

References