Original subtitles

I pledge allegiance to the flag

of the United States of America

and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all.

Following the bitterly contested

25th republican national convention,

which saw General Eisenhower

win over Senator Taft on the first ballot,

a tumultuous convention greets the nomination

of the general, who's become Mr. Eisenhower.

With his running mate Richard Nixon,

he'll face democrat Adlai Stevenson

in the november election.

We like Ike!

We like Ike!

At the united nations 'General Assembly',

A.U.N. official walks in almost unnoticed.

He's Dr. Ralph Bunche,

who, only a few hours before,

was announced winner of 'The Nobel Peace Prize.'

The first negro to win the award,

he is warmly congratulated by friends.

The supreme court of the United States

will hear cases from 5 states

to decide whether school segregation is legal.

The South Carolina case

was filed by 62 parents in Clarendon county.

South Carolina governor James F. Byrnes announced

that the nation's foremost trial lawyer,

John W. Davis,

will argue the case before the supreme court.

Hello. Legal defense fund.

I'll ring.

Mr. Hill is handling the Virginia case.

I'll tell Bob Carter. Yeah.

Legal defense fund.

I'm sorry. Mr. Marshall isn't taking any calls.

Why, Mr. Davis, how good to see you.

Good morning.

Here. This will help you sleep.

John W. Davis.

The lawyer's lawyer.

In law school, I used to cut classes,

take the bus over to the supreme court,

and watch him.

He was the greatest solicitor general we ever had.

I used to sit there and say to myself,

"Will I ever?"

And every time I'd have to answer,

"No...

never."

Why does a man of his stature

take their side?

The man has lived with the law for 50 years.

He must believe those fellows at the supreme court

will see it his way.

Well, you know what I think?

I think you're the best lawyer in America,

and that Carter, Greenberg, and Hill

are not far behind.

Well, we'll find out soon enough.

Will Dr. Levitt let you travel?

I'll be there.

He said one more week of treatments,

then I can travel.

I'll press this and get the spots out.

You got to get some new clothes.

I want you to look like a great lawyer, too.

Hello.

I got your message.

It's J.A. Delaine.

Can you get to Washington?

I've got a seat for you at the supreme court.

I shall be there.

Tickets, please.

Tomorrow here in Washington,

The supreme court will hear arguments

on Brown vs. the 'board of education.'

Lobbyists for the negro plaintiffs

in 4 states and the district of Columbia

are challenging the legality of school segregation.

John W. Davis and Thurgood Marshall...

response has been terrific here.

We've already collected $12,000,

and our people are still on the phone.

Please send it directly to our bank.

We expect even more money.

Thurgood greatly appreciates your help at a crucial time.

Some say that Felix Frankfurter

is the key man on the court.

There are 9 key men.

Peter, why don't we get our new man

to fill the gentlemen in.

Bill Coleman clerked for justice Frankfurter

during the 1948 term,

the first colored man ever chosen as clerk.

He knows the justices.

Bill, would you give the gentlemen

a sense of how the court stacks up?

Chief justice Vinson...

he plays poker 2 nights a week

with president Truman.

Some say he's better

at studying major league batting averages

than legal precedents.

Vinson is a passive leader of a divided court.

One result--less than half as many unanimous opinions

this year as 10 years ago.

Vinson relies heavily on legal precedent.

He's reluctant to overturn established law.

Tom Clark, Texas.

Conservative, votes with Vinson 90% of the time.

His own state of Texas has 1,000 segregated schools.

Justice Stanley Reed, Kentucky.

In some ways,

he's still a small-town southern lawyer.

Says he opposes discrimination against negroes,

but his solution could be equal schools,

not desegregation.

These two we can count on.

William O. Douglas

is the youngest member of the court.

Hugo Black, the oldest.

The strongest defenders of individual liberties

on the court.

These two we have to work on--

Jackson and Frankfurter.

Robert Jackson was appointed to the court

by Roosevelt in 1941.

He's still upset that Truman passed him over

when he made Vinson chief justice.

Do you know what stare decisis means?

Yesterday's decision shall govern today's decision?

Exactly.

Jackson believes that precedents

are a force for stability.

So, like a coral reef,

the law becomes a structure of fossils.

Felix Frankfurter--

the finest intellect on the court.

A jew born in Europe.

He knows discrimination.

He used to say to us,

"How we feel is not important.

It's the law that matters."

Is this Davis fellow

as brilliant as his reputation?

They call him the lawyer's lawyer.

I burned your old one.

Tomorrow morning, I want you looking

every bit as good as Mr. John W. Davis.

12th street and New York Avenue.

Watch your step.

The congressional has arrived from New York

on track 9.

Hello, Julia. Hello, John.

Mr. Davis, I cast my first vote for president

in 1924 for you.

Well, as things turned out,

that vote didn't harm anyone.

If everyone who says they voted for me actually did,

I'd have been president.

Good luck, Marshall.

Mrs. Marshall, I'm Julia Davis,

Mr. Davis' daughter.

It's nice to meet you.

I have great respect for your husband.

Thank you.

All rise.

The honorable the chief justice

and the associate justices

of the supreme court of the United States.

Oyez, oyez, oyez.

All persons having business before the honorable

the supreme court of the United States

are invited to draw near and give their attention,

for the court is now sitting.

God save the United States

and this honorable court.

Case number 101-- Harry Briggs, Jr. et al.

Against members of trustees

of school district number 22,

Clarendon county, South Carolina, et al.

Counsel are present.

Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Chief Justice.

may it please the court,

my colleagues will address

the Kansas, Delaware, Virginia,

and district of Columbia cases.

I will speak on behalf...

of Harry Briggs, Jr. and the negro children

of the town of Summerton,

who have raised their attack

on the validity of the South Carolina code

which reads,

"It shall be unlawful

"for pupils of one race

"to attend the schools provided

for persons of another race."

In the lower courts,

we produced unchallenged experts

who testified that segregation

damages the personality of negro children

and destroys their self-respect.

If Ralph Bunche,

this nation's distinguished ambassador

to the United Nations,

were assigned to South Carolina,

it would be the will of the people

that his children go to a 'Jim-Crow School.'

No matter how great anyone becomes,

if he happens to be a negro,

his children are relegated to that school.

Yet this court

is being asked by the defense

to uphold the segregation law

of South Carolina.

Under our form of government,

the only testing ground

as to whether or not individual rights

are violated by the majority

is here in this,

the supreme court of the United States.

The court must weigh

the rights of the negro children

against the public policy

of the state of South Carolina.

And if that policy violates those rights,

then this court, reluctant or otherwise,

is obliged to say

that that policy has run up against

the 14th amendment to the constitution,

which guarantees all citizens

equal treatment under the law.

We, therefore, respectfully urge...

that the judgment of the district court

be reversed

and the children's rights be affirmed.

Is it fair to say

that the South Carolina legislature

set up segregated schools

to avoid racial friction?

Yes, sir.

Doesn't the legislature

have to weigh the advantage

of maintaining law and order

against what might be a disadvantage

to the segregated group?

I think that the legislature should, Mr. Justice Reed,

but I--I think we have to bear in mind

that, as far as I know,

in these states,

there is not a single negro legislator

doing the weighing.

The only point before this court

is the law as it was applied in Clarendon county.

All we are asking

is that the state-imposed racial segregation

be stopped

and that the county school board

be instructed to work out a solution.

What kind of a solution?

They could assign children to schools

on any reasonable basis.

You mean we would have

gerrymandering of school districts?

Not gerrymandering, Mr. Justice Frankfurter.

the new district lines

would simply have to be drawn on a natural basis

without regard to race or color.

It would be important to me

to have you spell out

exactly what would happen

if this court reverses

and the case goes back to South Carolina.

What is important

is that we get the principle established.

Segregation by race is not legal.

It is impossible right now

to say precisely how it will work.

I think it's important to know

before one starts out where he is going.

I would like to reserve the remainder of my time.

I was watching

chief justice Vinson very carefully,

his face.

i don't like the expression in his eyes.

How did we do?

I think we've made a number of points

very effectively.

Truth is, fellas,

I wasn't very good.

Frankfurter is thorny.

Hardly lets a man finish a sentence.

An experienced lawyer is prepared for that.

I let myself get bogged down in detail.

The one thing I wanted to do

was find a way to talk about the principle,

convince them that segregation

is morally wrong,

that there is no such thing as separate equality.

Says counsel for the plaintiff,

"We have the uncontradicted testimony

"of expert witnesses

"that segregation is hurtful to the children

of both the colored and the white races."

Now, there are experts,

and there are experts.

Let me read a sentence or 2

from W. E. B. Du Bois,

the great negro educator.

"I have seen wise and loving colored parents

"take infinite pains

"to force their little children into schools

"where the white children and white teachers

"despised and bullied the dark child.

"Now, such parents want their children

"to fight this thing out,

but, dear god, at what a cost."

Dr. Du Bois concludes,

"We shall do better by putting the children

"in schools where they are wanted

"than by thrusting them into hells

where they are ridiculed and hated."

Let me come now to what is the crux of this case--

that is the meaning and interpretation

of the 14th amendment

to the constitution of the United States.

Your honors have said it is your duty,

and I quote,

"To place ourselves as nearly as possible

in the condition of the men who framed the instrument."

Now, what was the condition

of those who framed the instrument?

I will tell you.

The resolution proposing the 14th amendment

was proffered by congress in june of 1866.

One month later, the same congress

established separate schools for the races

right here in the district of Columbia.

And from that good day to this,

congress has not wavered in that policy.

So clearly, the congress does not believe

that the constitution speaks against segregated schools.

What is your answer, Mr. Davis,

to the suggestion

that the constitution is a living document

that must be interpreted in relation to the facts

at the time it is interpreted?

My answer to that, Mr. Justice Douglas,

is that changed conditions do not expand the language

that the framers of the constitution employed.

And it is inconceivable that the congress

which passed the 14th amendment

would have forbidden the states

to employ an educational plan

which congress itself

was employing in the district of Columbia.

No court, I respectfully submit,

is justified in ignoring that.

And over the years, this court has spoken

in the most clear and unmistakable terms

to the effect that segregation is not unlawful.

In Plessy vs. Ferguson

and in 6 subsequent cases,

the doctrine of separate but equal

has been upheld.

So, your honors, I might ask,

why should this be a matter of great national policy?

Is it not a fact the very strength and fiber

of our federal system

is local self-government?

I respectfully submit

there is no reason why this court or any other

should reverse the findings of 90 years.

Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Marshall, over here, please.

How will the court rule?

Mr. Carter, come this way, please.

Masterful, John.

You did us proud.

Thank you, Jim.

How do you see it?

Oh, 6-3. Maybe 5-4.

In the language of the famous general,

we've got them.

And they'll never get home.

Mr. Marshall, aren't all the precedents

that have been set

relating to this decision...

Well, Bob, I guess it's out of our hands.

The lives and hopes of so many millions

rest in the hands of those 9 men.

When do you think

they'll come down with a decision?

Months, not weeks.

I let myself get tangled up

in their questions...

and caught in the underbrush.

Davis...

he makes it sound like pages of history.

Come on, Thurgood.

It's christmas.

Yeah.

What about this housing case?

I'll take care of things.

Don't you worry.

These people are depending on us.

Buster needs you now.

Yeah.

All these years you've been tramping

in and out of southern courthouses.

Now is the time you can be with her.

Yeah.

I'll keep in touch.

Thurgood...

is she going to be ok?

She's got to be ok.

The nation's capital,

ready for its day of days,

the inauguration of a new president.

the dignitaries file through the Capitol rotunda

toward the portico,

where the transfer of the presidency will occur.

Here are members of congress.

Behind them,

members of the supreme court of the United States

in judicial robes.

I, Dwight D. Eisenhower,

do solemnly swear

that i will faithfully execute the office

of the president of the United States

and will, to the best of my ability,

preserve, protect, and defend

the constitution of the United States,

so help me God.

Seen Justice Frankfurter?

Yes, sir. Been here at least an hour.

Came in at 7:30 sharp.

Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Jackson.

Good morning.

Morning, sir.

Here are the notes on the 14th amendment

for the Clarendon matter.

Yes, Mark.

Have the brethren assembled?

I saw justices Reed and Jackson

going up the hall.

May I ask how it's going?

You may.

But knowing as you do

that the deliberations of the justices are privileged,

you may not expect a reply.

Stuck in the mud. No leadership.

The chief?

Heh heh.

Good morning.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas,

Mr. Justice Clark...

Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Jackson.

It's very simple for me.

The state cannot classify people

by color for education.

I'm with Douglas.

Prepared to desegregate.

I see it differently from Black and Douglas.

You have to look at the achievements

of the negro people,

the remarkable progress that's been made

since the deprivations of slavery till today.

I believe that in time, the states,

as this progress continues,

will themselves lower the barrier.

Meanwhile, the Plessy decision,

with its separate but equal doctrine,

is the law of the land.

It has been for half a century.

I see no compelling reason for overturning it now.

I agree with reed.

We were not appointed to this court

to make the law,

we're here to interpret it.

I'm comfortable with the precedents before us.

Doesn't stare decisis mean

that the court doesn't change its mind

just because some new justices come along?

The colored children in South Carolina,

Kansas, Delaware, Virginia,

and the district of Columbia

appealed to this court, claiming that segregation

denies them equal opportunity.

Now, we can't wear blinders.

The state segregation laws must be struck down.

I simply do not agree

that the framers of the 14th amendment

intended to bar segregated schools.

It doesn't say that. it says, "Equal protection,"

and the schools are being equalized.

What about the congress?

It's their job to take this on

and save us from becoming

a 9-man school board for the entire country.

I'm concerned over the effect on the country

if this court should put forward

a divided decision.

Felix, we have issued split decisions before,

and the republic has survived nicely.

Of course we have,

but this is an explosive issue.

Some governors have stated publicly

that they would resist an order to desegregate.

It would be a catastrophe if this court

put forward a decision it can't enforce.

Perhaps Felix' warning

should lead us in the direction of caution

when it comes to overturning precedents

which have been so continuously upheld

by the court.

We can move on to other matters

and revisit the school cases at another time.

It just seems so clear-cut to me.

Segregation is wrong,

so the court votes to ban it.

Bang.

Yes, Mark, a moral question

and a legal question

and what else?

Nothing else.

Wrong. It's also a political question.

The supreme court is above that.

That's why justices

have lifetime appointments.

That doesn't keep justices--

some justices-- from being concerned

about the political effect of what they do,

including this justice.

If we come down with a 5-4 decision to desegregate

or if we come down with

a 6-3 decision to uphold separate but equal,

there will be the majority opinion

and one, 2, or 3 dissenting opinions.

Judges like to put their spoon in the pie.

After 6 conferences, we are still split.

A divided court

will send a terribly confused signal to the country.

Could have massive opposition,

whichever way the decision goes.

So, what happens?

You need a kochloffel.

What's a kochloffel?

A cooking spoon that stirs things up.

Now we should turn our attention

to the school cases.

I do believe it is time

to cut the cards and deal.

I know where i stand.

I've been thinking.

The 14th amendment is at the heart of this question.

How can we be sure

what the intent of the amendment is

unless we know what was in the mind

of the congress that framed it in 1865

and the state legislatures that ratified it?

Did they intend for it to forbid segregated schools?

We are being asked to make what could be

the most important judicial decision

of this century,

and we are doing it without all the facts.

I propose...

that we ask counsel on both sides

to come back and re-argue the case,

focusing on this question--

what evidence is there

that the framers contemplated

or did not contemplate

that the 14th amendment would abolish segregation

in the public schools?

With that information,

we would be able to make a sound judgment.

Excellent. Excellent.

Hello.

Are you sure?

Thanks.

Re-argument.

Will you sign an invoice?

Uh, take it up front.

It's the New York Times. James Rustenpalmer?

Invoice?

$16.23.

C.O.D.

Um...Greenberg,

this man needs $16.23.

we're good for it.

Thurgood, professor Franklin.

John Hope? Ha ha ha ha!

What are you doing?

Going back to Howard, eh?

Good. You know what else you're going to be doing?

You're going to be working for me.

I need the best historians and constitutional scholars.

The supreme court wants to know

what those white men were thinking 100 years ago

when they passed the 14th amendment.

Be on the train tonight.

Thurgood, Bob Ming is coming in from Chicago.

He knows the 1865 debates by heart.

We don't have money

for train fare for these people.

Tell him we're good for it.

Alice, telegrams to all our supporters.

Tell them the supreme court has deferred judgement.

We have to re-argue the case

and we need emergency funds.

Tell them-- you know how to word it.

We need money bad.

Thurgood, when the 14th amendment was ratified,

there were 37 states.

You better research all of them.

Did you reach Henry Steele Commager?

Peanut talked to him.

He's not available. At Oxford for the summer.

He sent this message--

"I greatly fear your premise is wrong.

"the framers of the amendment

"did not, as far as we know, intend

"that it should be used to end segregation

"in public schools.

"I strongly urge you

"to consider dropping that particular argument

because it weakens your case."

Bob, get to Horace Bond.

He's the best scholar of political strategies

of that time.

Any of you guys know anybody who would give us money,

get to work on them.

We've got bills--travel, offices, telephones.

If they shut off our phones, we are out of business.

And there are a lot of people

who would like to see our door slammed.

I'm like General Patton--

the best tanks money could buy,

but no gas to run them on.

Can i help you?

I'm black.

You're black?

Charles Black from Austin, Texas.

What can we do for you?

I'm here to help.

I'm a professor and a lawyer,

and I can write a little.

They said you needed help.

Yes. They called me about you.

Find the professor some sit-down space.

We could use all the help we can get.

You can report

To the honorable governor, Mr. Tulley,

That I have assigned

2 of the brightest young men of our firm

to lead the research--

Mr. Straight from Harvard, Mr. McPherson from Yale--

but they do work together harmoniously.

Mr. Marshall seems to have fallen on hard times--

soliciting our partners.

"Send tax-deductible gift

"to NAACP legal defense fund, New York.

Thurgood Marshall."

Well, maybe we should

turn Mr. Straight and Mr. McPherson here loose

on their tax-deductible status.

that's not our style.

Their time will be better spent

in the libraries.

The attorney general of South Carolina

has asked his counterparts

in 37 other states that concern us

to research their state archives

at no expense to us.

The research will show that the states were

determined to retain the right

to shape their schools

to fit their particular region.

Now, the Marshall people will be looking

for something specific,

something that shows that congress

intended for the 14th amendment

to prohibit separate schools...

but they won't find it.

Buster?

Yes, honey?

Where have you been?

Errands.

What were you doing?

I had a whole bunch of errands.

Where's your watch?

I sold it.

You can't do that.

I did it.

We've got contributors.

I won't take the money.

Then I'll mail it in.

Buster!

When they wouldn't let me into the law school

at the University of Maryland,

my mother went downtown to the crown pawnshop

and sold her engagement band

and her wedding ring

to pay for me to go to law school at Howard.

So?

So, I don't want you selling your jewelry.

And what if your mother hadn't sold those rings?

Where would you be now, hmm?

I just don't like it.

Thurgood, you once said to me

that the fight for civil rights

was worth a life.

Remember?

I can get along without a watch,

but I can't get along without supper.

And I want to know

everything that's going on.

We've got the best professors and historians

from all around the country.

And thanks to Howard University and Charlie Houston,

our lawyers are as good or better

than the 'ivy league boys.'

And I will have a second chance...

to argue this case.

Like the old saying,

"I'm a man of peace, but I adore a riot."

Ming and I think the real key

lies in the ex-confederate states in the south.

It was a condition of their rejoining the union

after the civil war that they adopt the 14th amendment.

Congress insisted on it.

Not one of these states put a single word

about school segregation

in their new state constitution.

Now, we believe that this proved that they understood

the Jim-Crow schools were outlawed

by the 14th amendment.

They had to toe the mark

in order to get back into the union.

Exactly.

But some of those states turned around

and put in segregated schools

a year after

the 14th amendment was ratified.

And they've been operating segregated schools ever since.

Professor Kelly, I'm not sure

your argument holds water.

It sure doesn't.

Back to the books, boys.

I'm sure if we give them a little more time,

Mr. Kelly and Mr. Ming

will come up with something more solid.

Professor Black, is it necessary

for you to be negative so much of the time?

I'm not negative. I state facts.

I've been intending to ask you--

out of all the legal

and academic opportunities before you,

just why did you end up here at the legal defense fund?

Well, I'll tell you.

I come from deep, deep in Texas,

so deep I can't even remember

hearing the word "Republican"

before I was 18 years old.

But I had heard

of this really terrible organization

way up north called the NAACP.

It was an awful place with a great, big office

all the way up there in New York, they said,

and the worst thing of all about it

was that right there in that office,

there was this room,

a special, secret room

with, uh, no windows and no doors

and walls about a foot thick,

and the only way that you could get in

was with a combination of this huge lock.

And inside that room, they said,

there was nothing but hooks on the walls,

hundreds and hundreds of hooks.

And do you know what was hanging

on each and every one of those hooks?

What?

Well, they said

that on each of those hooks...

was a key to the bedroom

of a southern white woman.

So I figured...

that is an organization

I want to get involved in.

The family spokesman said the cause of death

was a massive heart attack

suffered at approximately 3:15 this morning

at his apartment in Washington.

The chief justice was 63 years old.

Turning to baseball,

the Dodgers topped the Phillies 3-2

in 10 innings.

The Giants shut out...

Afternoon, sir.

Mark.

Was it a nice service?

Yes.

Was the president there?

Oh, yes.

Mark, this is the first solid

piece of evidence I've ever had

that there is a God in heaven.

I can't help but think

that Vinson's successor will be better for us.

The devil you know is better

than the devil you don't know.

I watched General Eisenhower testify in congress

against desegregating the army

below the platoon level.

I don't think President Eisenhower

is gonna be looking for

a civil rights chief justice.

I still say the odds are we get someone

less wedded to the past than Vinson.

Times says Eisenhower may promote Justice Jackson

to the center seat

and name an associate in his place.

The republicans in the senate

will fry Ike if he tries

to put a democrat in the top spot.

Anyway, whoever it's going to be,

we got a ton of work to do.

It's nearly midnight, so let's get to it.

My spies tell me Foster Dulles can have it...

if he wants it.

Second choice--New York's own, governor Tom Dewey.

Were I you, John, I should fire my spies.

I have it on good authority--

and by good authority I mean 15 feet from the oval office--

that Ike made a deal at the republican convention.

In return for delivering California,

the first vacancy on the supreme court

goes to California's governor.

I'm afraid you were right.

For once, Greenberg?

The new chief justice is the same man

who uprooted 80,000 'Japanese-Americans'

during the war, confiscated their property,

And sent them to internment camps.

What was it a great man once said?

"The devil you know..."

Right.

Boys, we've got to do

what we've got to do.

We've got to find

something in the history

that says we are right.

Get Kelly, Ming, and the others

on 18-hour shifts.

We are not going to be

sitting around worrying

about who's sitting on the bench.

Get back to it.

So far,

nothing appears to pose a problem

for our position.

Mr. Davis, if I may ask,

how does governor Warren going on the court

affect things?

The post describes him as the colorless manager

of a team of all-stars.

I would think very little, Mr. Straight.

Separate but equal has been upheld

by the court 7 times,

and the fact there is a division within the court

should work to our advantage.

There will be a great reluctance

to overturn such an historic precedent

on a close vote.

Those men do not wish to create chaos.

Comes down to the fact that the man is a politician,

not a jurist.

He's never before sat on the bench--

not even 5 minutes on a police court.

No judicial philosophy.

I'll get you settled in, Mr. Chief Justice.

I'm going to need all the help I can get,

I assure you.

And your name?

Patterson, sir.

How do you do, Mr. Patterson?

Sir.

in California,

I had 8,000 people working for me.

This will be different.

We have studied the history.

The declaration of independence

had glowing language proclaiming

that all men are created equal,

with the inalienable right

to life, liberty,

and the pursuit of happiness,

but the authors of the constitution

included no such statement,

a concession to the fact

that our young republic

tolerated human slavery.

At the end of the civil war,

congress passed the 13th amendment,

abolishing slavery,

but it gave slaves no specific rights.

The civil rights act of 1866 followed,

and it was the cornerstone

to the 14th amendment.

We have probed the records,

and frankly...

we do not like what we find.

The civil rights act was written

with a no-discrimination clause,

but congress removed it before it was passed.

And nowhere in the debates on the 14th amendment

do we find any statement that suggests

that school segregation was an issue.

We had hoped that abolitionist leaders

like John Bingham and Thaddeus Stevens

would have recorded their position

on segregation in schools. Nothing.

That bears out our studies.

See, public education

was in its early stages.

To newly freed slaves,

education of any sort

would have seemed

a major step forward.

We also have to face the fact

that congress set up segregated schools

in the district of Columbia

and has supported that practice

up to this very day.

All in all, it gives us very little

in the way of favorable evidence

to answer the justices' question

about the intent of the 14th amendment.

Al, isn't there some way

we could shape this history

to make our case?

I'm all for the cause, Bob,

but I am an historian first.

But there's got to be some way to nail it down.

It's difficult to be precise

about what people thought a century ago.

So I think our strategy should be

to bypass the court's question

and argue this on broad humanitarian grounds.

The fuel for the 14th amendment

was a spirit of idealism and a sense of justice.

The amendment meant what it said--

equal protection.

We believe we can win this

by arguing the broad humanitarian approach.

It is the moral position, and we are a moral nation.

Ok, let's write it up that way.

What gives?

It'll never work.

The broad humanitarian approach.

Frankfurter will smell it in a second.

He'll see it as evasive.

It's too general, isn't it?

It's a long shot.

Where's Kelly?

He's going back to Detroit, morning train.

Call him at the hotel. Try and catch him.

Just pay the ones that have to be paid.

That's what these are.

Can't we just

hold on to them a week or so?

They'll turn the lights off again.

We should talk to Thurgood. this is--

Thurgood is waiting for these.

Marion?

Marion, where are you going?

It's 6:00, saturday. I have a date,

and no paycheck for 3 weeks.

Good night.

Don't you know

what you're doing in there?

Don't you?

I'm typing the same stuff over and over.

If that stuff

doesn't get typed...

what you're doing in there

is helping to make history.

Good night.

Thurgood, excuse me.

I think the time has come for us to deal with this.

Alice, would you run downstairs

and grab us some sandwiches, please?

The beginning of this needs to be tighter and clearer.

What are you doing, Alice?

Making history.

This is it!

Ha!

We got it.

Thaddeus Stevens.

Read it.

Thaddeus Stevens in the debate

on the floor of congress

when the amendment was first presented.

"Where any state makes distinctions

"between different classes of individuals,

"congress shall have the power

"to correct such discriminations

"and inequality.

"No distinction would be tolerated

"in this purified republic

but what rose from merit and conduct."

Place this

in the front section of the brief.

And send someone out for ice and bourbon.

Mr. Kelly needs a drink!

"These infant appellants

"are asserting the most important claims

"that can be put forward by children,

"the claim to their full measure

"of the chance to learn and grow

"and the inseparably connected

"but even more important claim

"to be treated as entire citizens

of the society into which they have been born."

You understand.

Professor, you are a negro.

Honey, this is too tough a trip for you.

I'll be back in a couple of days.

You'd be better off here.

I will be in that courtroom

on tuesday morning.

New hat?

It's pretty.

It is the hat I wore last year

at the first supreme court argument.

I hope it's...

a luckier hat this year.

In Clarendon school district number one

in South Carolina,

there are 2,799 registered negro children

of school age.

There are 295 white children.

The state has now provided those 2,800 negro children

with schools that are,

as Mr. Marshall has so positively admitted,

equal in every respect.

In fact, because of their being newer,

they may even be better

than the schools of the 295 white children.

Now, who's going to disturb that situation?

If these children were to be reassorted

on a mathematical basis,

you would have 27 negro children

and 3 white children

in each schoolroom.

Would that make the children any happier?

Would they learn more quickly?

Your honors cannot sit

as a glorified board of education

for the state of South Carolina

or any other state.

Nor, I respectfully submit,

can this court sit

in the chairs of the legislature

of South Carolina

and mold its educational system.

The state establishes the schools,

it pays the funds,

and it has the sole power to educate its citizens.

The state of South Carolina

does not come here in sackcloth and ashes.

Its laws do not offend

the constitution of the United States.

It is convinced that the happiness

and the progress and the welfare

of these children

is best promoted in segregated schools,

and it would be a thousand pities

that, by this controversy,

it might be ordered to abandon

what it has created.

I am reminded of Aesop's Fable

of the dog and the meat.

The dog, with a fine piece of meat in his mouth,

crossed a bridge.

He saw the shadow in the stream,

and he plunged for it.

And he lost both the shadow and the substance.

Now, here is equal education,

not prophesied, but present.

Shall it be thrown away

on some--some fancied question of racial prestige?

It is not my part

to offer advice to the appellants

and certainly not to the learned counselor.

No doubt they think what they propose is best.

But I entreat them to remember

the age-old motto

that the best is often the enemy of the good.

Mr. Marshall,

you have 5 minutes for rebuttal.

May it please the court...

The 14th amendment was put into our constitution

after one of the worst wars ever fought.

The duty of enforcing the 14th amendment

is placed upon this court

to make sure that the states,

in administering their functions,

disregard little pet feelings

about race.

The negroes who are forced to submit to segregation

are all american citizens

who, by accident of birth,

are a different color.

And the color makes no difference

one way or another

insofar as this court is concerned.

Harry Briggs, Jr. is guaranteed by the state

some 12 years of education.

There is no way you can repay lost school years,

but...

they say leave it to the states

until they work it out.

I got the feeling on hearing the discussion earlier

that when you put a white child in a school

with a whole lot of colored children,

the child would fall apart.

Everyone knows

that is not true.

Those same kids

in Virginia and South Carolina--

and I... have seen them do it--

they play in the streets together.

They separate to go to school.

They come out of school and play ball together.

But they have to be separated in school.

There must be some magic to it.

You can have them going

to the same state university and to the same college,

but if they go to elementary and high school together,

the world will fall apart.

The only way that this court

can decide this case

in opposition to our position

is to find some reason

which gives the state the right...

to make a classification in regards to negroes

that they can make in regard to nothing else,

and we submit...

the only way to arrive at this decision

is to find that, for some reason,

negroes are inferior to all other human beings.

Nobody...

will stand in this court and say that

because they would have to justify it.

It can only be one thing...

an inherent determination

that the people who were formerly in slavery

shall be kept as near that condition

as is possible.

Now...

is the time.

we submit that this court

should make it clear...

that 'that' is not

what the Constitution of the United States

stands for.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Marshall.

Thurgood.

Crab soup.

Oh, I know it's crab soup.

Hot.

Mmm.

That's good.

Very good, Thurgood.

We concede Douglas and Black

to the other side.

Reed and Clark should vote with us.

Jackson and Frankfurter

are leaning towards our point of view--

judicial restraint.

That's 4, and we should pick up another vote

from Minton or from Burton

or from chief justice Warren.

How are you getting on with the new chief?

I've discovered that he listens,

though he is untutored in the law.

Well, it could be argued

that's an ideal combination

for a chief justice--

open-minded and flexible.

Well, I hope y'all get down to it.

It's not that tough a call, as I see it.

For those who do not have to decide, it is easy.

The humanitarian thing to do

is to strike down segregation,

but nothing presented to us--

neither history nor legal precedent--

offers any help.

I think Jackson wants to toss it to Congress.

The authority for enforcing the 14th amendment--

Sir. Sir, if I may,

the negroes are the group for whom

the 14th amendment was written.

It's for their protection.

And since 1868, everybody else

has come to this court invoking the protection

of the 14th amendment.

Corporations and Chinese and aliens

and everybody else come in and claim

they've been denied equal protection

of the laws.

They come to the supreme court

of the United States, and you listen to them.

And if you find that their rights

have been violated, then you take care of them.

But when the one group for whose protection

the 14th amendment was written--

the negroes--come in and ask you for relief,

Jackson wants you to say yes,

your constitutional rights

have been violated, but don't come to us.

You go across the street,

you ask congress to give you relief.

We're not gonna give you a damn thing.

Mark...

at Harvard I would have given you an "A" for that.

Tempus fugit.

I'm exactly where I was one year ago.

I'm prepared to vote to desegregate,

and if my vote should be in the minority,

I shall write as strong a dissent as I know how.

After reading over 1,500 pages,

I have yet to discover a basis

in the constitution or the 14th amendment

that allows us to order the states

to do with their schools

that which they do not wish to do.

I was very taken by something

Mr. hurgood Marshall said.

"The only way the court can decide this case

"in opposition to our position

"is to find that, for some reason,

"negroes are inferior

to all other human beings."

Hugo, I base my view on the law,

and nothing in the law

tells us that we can tell South Carolina

to abolish separate schools.

This country has been making great strides

in race relations.

A careless decision here could halt that progress.

How do you see that happening, Stanley?

If the american people

feel that a bunch of liberals in Washington

are forcing their social views

on the states,

there will be...

profound resentment.

I've seen the race problem more closely

than most of you.

I'm concerned about the possibility

of violence, massive resistance.

What if we say desegregate

and they refuse?

Can we send the army into South Carolina

to enforce it?

Send the army into 20 states?

I'm surprised that the history provides

so little in the way of legal footing

for striking down segregation.

I find I'm arguing with myself.

My heart tells me segregation is wrong.

The law tells me not to interfere with the states.

I do not like the idea of segregation,

but for 100 years, the south

has had segregated school systems,

and this court has told them it was legal.

We can't just turn on a dime and say

tomorrow morning, things will be different.

Nor can we continue to say

that in The United States of America,

all men are equal,

but that white men are more equal than others.

For God's sake, let's decide the principle.

We can remain flexible on how to implement it.

Disaster.

This court is expected to be precise and clear.

Felix, you say you're arguing with yourself.

Perhaps you'd prepare a memorandum

outlining the issues and offering some suggestions

as to where our choices lie.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Our great civil libertarian

is going to get us in the soup.

Douglas is so abrasive,

he makes conciliation and compromise

even more difficult.

He obviously feels very deeply.

Douglas is a great humanitarian

in the abstract.

He just can't stand people.

Almost ready.

Sir, these will be better

than your city shoes.

Well...

Thank you, Mr. Patterson.

You know the roads, Mr. Patterson.

Oh, yes, sir.

I've been out this way many times before.

The war between the states is one of my hobbies.

Manassas, bull run...

just a short drive from the city.

You ever been to Gettysburg before, sir?

No, no.

For me, one of the pleasures of living in the east

will be to see some of these things.

Little round top. Meade had the high ground.

He had the artillery, too.

That was the whole story.

In the winter of 1944 in Italy,

we were pinned down in the Sergio Valley

for 2 weeks.

The gerrys had the hilltop.

They were pouring their .88s down in on us.

Bloodied us real bad.

Taught me a whole lot

about the value of high ground.

So simple...

yet so strong.

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated

"to the great task remaining before us--

"that from these honored dead

"we take increased devotion

"for that cause for which they gave

"the last full measure of devotion--

"that we here highly resolve

"that these dead shall not have died in vain--

"that this nation, under god,

"shall have a new birth of freedom--

"and that government of the people,

"by the people, for the people

"shall not perish

from the earth."

On to Manassas, sir?

Good morning, sir.

Mr. Patterson,

why are you sleeping in there?

Sir, I couldn't find a place...

Sir, there's no place within 20 miles of here

where I'd...

let's get back to Washington.

"To be treated as entire citizens

"of the society

into which they've been born."

Come in, Mark.

It's Earl Warren.

Earl.

Felix.

Felix, this court must vote

to desegregate.

I believe that this is a moral issue,

one that goes deep into the soul

of our nation.

The more I ponder this,

the more I believe

the separate but equal idea

is based on the concept

that the colored race is inferior

and that those who sustain it

must be willing to acknowledge that.

Now...

I believe my vote

will make a majority of 5.

I will assign the writing

of the opinion to myself.

I hope to write it in a way

that will bring others with me.

What do I have to do to have you with me?

You're a man

from the hurly-burly of public life, Earl.

I'm a man from the private world

of the jurist.

We both know what is right here,

but to you it seems... less complicated.

Neither history nor legal precedent

gives us reason,

but there are times when the court

must be free to interpret the constitution

based on the changes in men's feeling

for what is right and just.

The humanitarian goal will have to do.

But if you force a sharply divided decision,

you will have accomplished no good.

You must work to unite the court.

How, Felix?

Jackson.

You must persuade him to vote with us

and not to write a separate opinion.

You must talk to him, convince him,

and then, if you're successful,

Clark, he should follow.

Stanley Reed will be the most difficult.

Can reed be turned?

Only by you. but Jackson first.

If you write an opinion,

I will study it with an open mind.

That's all I ask.

But an open mind cannot change

my belief that this matter

rightfully belongs to the congress.

Earl, you are looking for a...

congenial political solution

to the problem.

I'm looking for a way to do what I think

we both believe is the right thing to do.

The only possible way, in my view,

to write a decision to end segregation

with intellectual honesty

is to argue

that the majestic generalities

of the constitution

have a content and a significance

that vary from age to age.

Yes?

I don't like it, but you can try it.

I like this.

I've got control.

With the courts,

all I can do is wait.

Buster...

The time I got the job as a waiter

with the Baltimore & Ohio...

Your daddy got you that job.

They handed me a uniform...

white coat,

black pants that fit real nice,

except they stopped just above the ankles

6 inches too short.

I went to the man in charge, and I said,

"Sir, I need to have another pair of pants.

These are too short."

The man looked me over,

and you know what he said?

He said, "Don't you know it's easier for me

"to get a shorter negro

than it is to get another uniform?"

It makes me angry.

That was a long time ago.

Mm-mmm. I mean about being sick.

Changes are coming--

Changes we never dared dream about...

and I may not see them.

I want to see the things we've worked for...

all the changes that will come.

You'll see changes.

You will see a different world.

And you know something?

You'll know we made a difference.

Douglas.

Black.

Minton.

Burton.

Warren.

Frankfurter.

Jackson,

Clark...

and Reed.

Miss McHugh, Mr. Patterson--

Work to do.

Now, if you would... type this, please?

Yes, sir.

I will review it.

Then, Mr. Patterson,

if you would take it to the print shop

and order 9 copies,

only 9.

Yes, sir.

May I guess why you're here?

I will vote to desegregate

if...if the opinion

gives the southern states time.

We're not dealing just with law.

We are dealing with a social revolution.

It needs time.

You read that, Tom.

It may need some refinement.

I'd like to accommodate your view.

Stanley, I've written this opinion

in a way which I hope will unite the court.

There's a word that's been on my mind of late--

krytocracy.

K-R-Y-T-O-C-R-A-C-Y.

I checked it last night in the oxford dictionary.

It says "Government by judges."

I do not want to see this court

travel outside its authority.

It isn't a question of what I would like to see,

but what the constitution will permit me to see.

And, Earl...

understand this--

I do not believe

that negroes are an inferior race.

Sir, it's Mr. Justice Jackson.

Yes?

Sir, they just took him to Walter Reed.

A heart attack, sir.

Major McCarthy, please come to station 23.

Mr. Justice Jackson?

I'm Earl Warren.

Sir, he's resting.

Mr. Prittyman is handling his calls.

Oh, hello, Barrett.

Hello, Mr. Chief Justice.

They say he'll make it.

I talked to him this morning.

I think he'll be ok.

Good, good.

Barrett, uh...

as soon as you think he's up to it,

ask him to read this.

It's important.

I know, sir.

A little bout with one's mortality

has a way of focusing the mind.

Since the end of the civil war,

the United States

has been hesitating between 2 worlds--

one dead,

the other powerless to be born.

What you have written

is quite remarkable.

In very... plain and understandable words,

it tells the nation what must be done

and why.

I'm with you, Earl.

You're all by yourself now, Stanley.

The fact remains--

this court has been given no evidence

that the nation knew a century ago

that it was outlawing--

Stanley, we have 8 votes to desegregate.

Each of us is concerned about history.

Each of us is reluctant to overrule precedents.

But we are convinced

that the law in this day and age

cannot set negro schoolchildren apart,

not in The United States of America.

This country has been making consistent progress

in race relations.

This decision could impede that progress...

halt the march.

A piece of paper cannot eradicate

the fears and prides

and prejudices of the people.

Earl... if this court

tries to force the southern states

to change overnight,

there will be resistance,

litigation, disobedience,

and years of conflict.

Believe me.

Stanley, I'm a politician.

I've worked for the people

for over 30 years now.

I've seen them in police stations,

hospitals, unemployment lines.

I'm convinced that the people

will accept a ruling

that fortifies their inner conscience.

Let the backbone come from the court,

and it'll strengthen the moral backbone

of the people who live in conflict.

Stanley, a fully united court

will send a signal to this nation.

I pray that you'll see your way clear

to join the majority.

Hello.

I'll be on the midnight train.

Get ready for passengers on track 22.

Silver mid-year service from Miami Beach, Florida...

Find another cab, boy.

We're going to the supreme court.

Come on, Bob. Come on.

I think you'll want to be in court

this morning, boys.

9 copies, sir...

for the brethren.

Welcome back.

Welcome back.

It's good to have you back.

All rise.

The honorable the chief justice

and the associate justices

of the supreme court of the United States.

Oyez, oyez, oyez.

All persons having business

before the honorable the supreme court

of the United States

are invited to draw near and give their attention,

for the court is now sitting.

These cases come to us

from the states of Kansas,

South Carolina,

Virginia,

and Delaware.

They are premised on different facts

and different local conditions,

but a common legal question

justifies their consideration together.

In approaching this question,

we cannot turn the clock back to 1868,

when the 14th amendment was adopted,

or even to 1896,

when Plessy vs. Ferguson was written.

We must consider public education

in the light of its present place

in american life.

Only in this way can it be determined

if segregation in public schools

deprives these young plaintiffs

of the equal protection of the laws.

In these days,

it is doubtful that any child

may reasonably be expected to succeed in life

if he is denied the opportunity

of an education.

Such an opportunity,

where the state has undertaken to provide it,

is a right which must be made available

to all on equal terms.

We come, then, to the question presented--

does segregation of children in public schools

solely on the basis of race,

even though the physical facilities

may be equal,

deprive the children of the minority group

of equal education opportunities?

We believe...

Unanimously

that it does.

We conclude

that in the field of public education,

the doctrine of separate but equal

has no place.

Separate educational facilities

are inherently unequal.

Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs

and others similarly situated

for whom the actions have been brought

are, by reason of the segregation complained of,

deprived of the equal protection of the laws

guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

It is so ordered.

Please, Mr. Marshall--

Buster, it's me.

We did it.

Unanimous.

Buster...

I love you.

A bulletin from Washington.

At 1:10 p.m.,

the United States supreme court

chief justice Earl Warren

announced the unanimous decision

to outlaw segregation of negroes in public schools.

The court said separating negro children

violates rights guaranteed to american citizens

by the 14th amendment.

Father?

Morning, Julia.

The decision...

for the plaintiffs.

It was unanimous.

In the words of the general--

"We have met the enemy,

and we are theirs."

I'm sorry, father.

Someday I'm going to learn to accept

good advice when it's offered.

There's troubled times ahead.

Looking at it philosophically,

unanimous decision

is the best thing for the country.

Great! Yeah!

Congratulations.