Trial Script-Brown v. The Board of Education

Brown v. Board of Education - Legal Argument Script

Brown v. The Board of Education

Attorney for Brown:

Chief Justice Warren, Associate Justices, I stand before you today representing Linda Brown and countless children who were denied their constitutional rights by state-mandated racial segregation. After decades of strategic litigation by the NAACP, a Legal Defense Fund, we ask this Court to recognize that segregated public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The question is not whether separate facilities can theoretically be made equal, but whether the Constitution permits states to classify American children by race. We submit to the court that  it does not.

Constitutional Foundation

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no state shall deny any person "equal protection of the laws." When Kansas forces children into separate schools based solely on their race, it violates this fundamental guarantee. The act of separation itself brands African American children with a badge of inferiority that no amount of equal facilities can remedy.

Your Honors, we are not arguing about building quality or textbook quantities. We challenge the state's power to sort citizens by race. When a state tells Linda Brown she cannot attend her neighborhood school because of her skin color, it inflicts harm that strikes at equal citizenship itself. The state teaches these children they are so inherently different, so inherently inferior, that they must be kept apart from fellow citizens.

Evolution of Legal Precedent

Famous Legal Cases on Race

This Court has systematically dismantled the "separate but equal" doctrine through strategic higher education cases. In Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada in 1938, you ruled Missouri could not satisfy constitutional obligations by paying for Lloyd Gaines to attend out-of-state law school. States must provide equal opportunities within their borders.

In Sipuel v. Board of Regents in 1948, you held that Oklahoma must provide legal education for African Americans simultaneously with white students. Delay itself became a constitutional violation.

Most significantly, in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents in 1950, you found that segregating George McLaurin within the University of Oklahoma—forcing separate seating, library tables, and dining times—violated Equal Protection because it impaired his ability to study and engage with peers.

That same year, in Sweatt v. Painter, you ruled that the University of Texas must admit Heman Sweatt because the separate black law school was inferior in tangible and intangible ways—reputation, faculty quality, and networking opportunities essential to legal practice.

Psychological Evidence

The Doll Test

    These cases established that intangible factors determine true equality. Today we present scientific evidence that segregation inflicts psychological wounds that no equal facilities can heal. Dr. Kenneth and Mamie Clark conducted experiments with African American children in segregated schools. When presented with identical dolls—one white, one brown—these children consistently preferred the white doll, describing it as "nice" while calling the brown doll "bad." When asked which doll resembled them, many became visibly distressed.

    This research proves segregation teaches children to reject their own race, internalizing inferiority that follows them throughout life. The state, through segregation, actively harms African American children's psychological development. No separate school, regardless of physical quality, can undo this fundamental harm.

The Inherent Contradiction

Your Honors, "separate but equal" is inherently contradictory. When states separate citizens by race, they communicate that one race differs so fundamentally from another that they cannot share public facilities. This classification rests on racial hierarchy assumptions incompatible with equal protection.

Education prepares children for democratic citizenship. Segregation denies them opportunities to learn alongside citizens of all races—an experience fundamental to democratic participation.

Conclusion:

1954 Supreme Court gave there decision

Through Gaines, Sipuel, McLaurin, and Sweatt, this Court has narrowed "separate but equal" by recognizing that intangible factors—prestige, networking, free interaction—are essential to equality. We ask you to complete this evolution: declare that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal and violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment's promise demands nothing less. Thank you.