Bouie v. City of Columbia facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Bouie v. City of Columbia |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 14 – October 15, 1963 Decided June 22, 1964 |
|
| Full case name | Simon Bouie and Talmadge J. Neal v. City of Columbia |
| Citations | 378 U.S. 347 (more)
84 S. Ct. 1697, 12 L. Ed. 2d 894 (1964)
|
| Prior history | 239 S.C. 570, 124 S.E.2d 332 (1962), upholding conviction for trespass |
| Holding | |
| The State Supreme Court gave retroactive application to its new construction of the statute, which deprived petitioners of their right to fair warning of a criminal prohibition and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Brennan, joined by Warren, Clark, Stewart |
| Concurrence | Goldberg, joined by Warren |
| Concurrence | Douglas |
| Dissent | Black, joined by Harlan, White |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Bouie v. City of Columbia was an important case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964. It was about whether a state could change the meaning of a law and then punish people for actions they took before the law's meaning was changed. The Court decided that this was not fair and went against a basic right called due process. This right means that laws must be clear, and people must have a fair warning about what is against the law.
Contents
Understanding Bouie v. City of Columbia
This case is a key part of how the Supreme Court protects people's rights. It ensures that laws are applied fairly and that no one is punished for something that wasn't clearly illegal at the time they did it. This idea is linked to the Fourteenth Amendment, which helps protect people from unfair laws.
What Happened? The Sit-in Story
In 1960, the Civil rights movement was gaining strength across the United States. Many people, especially African-American students, were protesting unfair rules. One common way to protest was through "sit-ins." This is where people would sit in places where they were not allowed to be served, like segregated lunch counters.
The Protest in Columbia, South Carolina
On March 14, 1960, two African-American students from Allen University in Columbia, South Carolina, decided to do a sit-in. They went to an Eckerd's drugstore. This store allowed African Americans to shop there, but they were not allowed to eat at the lunch counter.
The students sat down at the lunch counter. An employee then put up a "no trespassing" sign. The students were asked to leave, but they stayed. Because they refused to leave, they were arrested. They were charged with disturbing the peace and with trespass, which means being on someone else's property without permission.
The State Court's Decision
The students were found guilty only of trespass. Their convictions were later upheld by the South Carolina Supreme Court. This meant the state court agreed that the students had broken the trespass law.
The Supreme Court's Big Decision
The students then took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The main question for the Court was whether the state of South Carolina had applied the trespass law fairly.
Justice Brennan's Explanation
Justice Brennan wrote the main opinion for the Supreme Court. He explained that South Carolina's trespass law usually meant that it was illegal to *enter* someone's land after being told not to. However, the South Carolina Supreme Court had decided that the law also meant it was illegal to *stay* on someone's property after being told to leave. This new interpretation of the law was made *after* the students had already done their sit-in.
Why the Court Reversed the Convictions
The Supreme Court said that changing the meaning of a law *after* someone has acted, and then punishing them based on that new meaning, is not fair. It's like changing the rules of a game after it's already been played. This is called "retroactive application."
The Court explained that this kind of retroactive change acts like an "ex post facto" law. An ex post facto law is one that makes an action illegal after it has already been done. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause prevents such unfair laws. Because the students didn't have a clear warning that staying after being asked to leave was a crime under the trespass law, the Supreme Court reversed their convictions. This meant the students were not guilty.
Other Opinions
- Justices Goldberg and Douglas agreed with the outcome. They felt the case was similar to another sit-in case, Bell v. Maryland, which was decided on the same day.
- Justice Black disagreed. He believed that staying after being told to leave was already understood to be against the South Carolina trespass law. He also felt that the Fourteenth Amendment did not force restaurant owners to serve customers they didn't want to.
