Gong Lum v. Rice

• Federalism
• Terms and definitions
• Laws
• Court cases
• Major arguments
• State responses to federal mandates
• State survey of the federal grant review process
  • State responses to the federal grant review process survey, 2021
  • State responses by question to the federal grant review process survey, 2021
• Federalism by the numbers
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal mandates
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal grants-in-aid
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal information collection requests
  • Overview of federal spending during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic
• Index of articles

Gong Lum v. Rice
Reference: 275 U.S. 78
Term: 1927
Important Dates
Submitted: October 12, 1927 Decided: November 21, 1927
Outcome
Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed
Majority
William Howard Taft • George Sutherland • Harlan Fiske Stone • Oliver Wendell Holmes • Willis Van Devanter • James Clark McReynolds • Louis Brandeis • Edward Terry Sanford • Pierce Butler

Gong Lum v. Rice is a case that was decided unanimously on November 21, 1927, by the United States Supreme Court holding that a Mississippi public school for white children denying a Chinese-American student from attending did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the student was allowed to attend the nearby public school for students of color. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

HIGHLIGHTS

The case: In Rosedale, Mississippi, a man by the name of Gong Lum was the parent of Martha Lum. Martha's family was of Chinese descent, however, she was a native-born citizen of the United States. Martha was nine years old at the time and attended school at an all-white public institution within the Rosedale Consolidated High School District. The superintendent, acting on an order issued by the school board, notified Martha that she would not be allowed to return to the school because “not a member of the white or Caucasian race.”

The issue: Did a Mississippi school district violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by denying a Chinese-American student from attending their school based on her race?

The outcome: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Mississippi and held that the Mississippi school board did not deny equal protection of the law to a student of Chinese descent because it allowed them to attend the school for students of color.

Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in this case upheld the Mississippi Constitution by allowing school districts to maintain separate and equally maintained schools for students of color. To read more about the impact of Gong Lum v. Rice click here.

Background

A resident of Rosedale, Mississippi, named Gong Lum was the father of nine-year-old Martha Lum. Martha was considered a native-born citizen of the United States but most of her family was from China. She attended an all-white school within the Rosedale Consolidated High School District. On her first day of attending school, the superintendent, acting on behalf of the school's board of trustees, ordered her that she was not permitted to return to the school because “not a member of the white or Caucasian race.” Martha’s father filed suit, challenging the school district's policy which would require Martha to attend the school for students of color.

A state trial court entered a mandamus order in favor of Gong Lum, requiring school officials to readmit Martha into Rosedale. It held that Martha should not have been classified as a person of color since she was not of African descent. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the decision of the lower court and held that Martha was deemed a student of color and therefore should attend the school for students of color.

Important Dates

The case was submitted to the Court on October 12, 1927, and decided on November 21, 1927.

Decision

The Supreme Court decided 9-0 to affirm the decision of the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Chief Justice William Howard Taft delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justices Oliver Holmes, George Sutherland, Harlan Fiske Stone, Willis Van Devanter, James Clark McReynolds, Louis Brandeis, Edward Terry Sanford, and Pierce Butler.

Opinion

Opinion of the court

Chief Justice William Taft, writing for the court, argued that Martha Lum was not denied equal protection of the law outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment because she was allowed to attend the school for students of color:

“	Most of the cases cited arose, it is true, over the establishment of separate schools as between white pupils and black pupils, but we cannot think that the question is any different, or that any different result can be reached, assuming the cases above cited to be rightly decided, where the issue is as between white pupils and the pupils of the yellow races. The decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.	”
—William Taft, majority opinion in Gong Lum v. Rice

Impact

Gong Lum v. Rice strengthened the precedent established in the case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld the Separate But Equal legal doctrine in public education and permitted separate schools for students of different races to exist as long as the facilities were equally maintained. Plessy was overturned by the 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

See also

• The Taft Court
• Supreme Court of the United States
• History of the Supreme Court
• Federalism
• Plessy v. Ferguson
• Brown v. Board of Education

External links

• Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
• Supreme Court of the United States
• Search Google News for this topic

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox

Category:Federalism court cases Category:Noteworthy cases, federal cases Category:Noteworthy cases, SCOTUS Category:United States Supreme Court Category:Historic SCOTUS cases Category:Decided_SCOTUS_cases