Per Curiam.
In two appeals now pending, No. 8, Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al., and No. 101, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., the appellants challenge, respectively, the constitutionality of a statute of Kansas, and a statute and the Constitution of South Carolina, which provide for segregation in the schools of these states. Appellants allege that segregation is, per se, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Argument in these cases has heretofore been set for the week of October 13, 1952.
In No. 191, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County et al., the appellants have filed a statement of jurisdiction raising the same issue in respect to a statute and the Constitution of Virginia. Appellees in the Davis casé have called attention to the similarity between it and the Briggs and Brown cases; by motion they have asked the Court to take necessary action to have all three cases argued together.
This Court takes judicial notice of a fourth case, which is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al., No. 11,018 on that court’s docket. In that case, the appellants challenge the appellees’ refusal to admit certain Negro appellants to a segregated white school in the District of Columbia; they allege that appellees have taken such action pursuant to certain Acts of Congress; they allege that such action is a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The Court is of the opinion that the nature of the issue posed in those appeals now before the Court involving the Fourteenth Amendment, and also the effect of any decision which it may render in those cases, are such that it would be well to consider, simultaneously, the constitutional issue posed in the case of Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al.
To the end that arguments may be heard together in all four of these cases, the Court will continue the Brown and Briggs cases on its docket. Probable jurisdiction is noted in Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County et al. Arguments will be heard in these three cases at the first argument session in December.
The Court will entertain a petition for certiorari in the case of Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al., 28 U. S. C. §§ 1254 (1), 2101 (e), which if presented and granted will afford opportunity for argument of the case immediately following the arguments in the three appeals now pending.
It k to ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents from postponing argument and decision in the three cases presently here for Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al., in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.