PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CITY TRUSTS OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA.
No. 769.
Decided April 29, 1957.
Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, and Lois O. Forer, Deputy Attorney General, for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Abraham L. Freedman and David Berger for the City of Philadelphia et al., and William T. Coleman, Jr., Raymond Pace Alexander and Louis Poliak for Foust et al., appellants.
Owen B. Rhoads for appellee.
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction is granted. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 2103, the petition is granted. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (3).
Stephen Girard, by a will probated in 1831, left a fund in trust for the erection, maintenance, and operation of a “college.” The will provided that the college was to admit “as many poor white male orphans, between the ages of six and ten years, as the said income shall be adequate to maintain.” The will named as trustee the City of Philadelphia. The provisions of the will were carried out by the State and City and the college was opened in 1848. Since 1869, by virtue of an act of the Pennsylvania Legislature, the trust has been administered and the college operated by the “Board of Directors of City Trusts of the City of Philadelphia.” Pa. Laws 1869, No. 1258, p. 1276; Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann., 1957, Tit. 53, § 16365.
In February 1954, the petitioners Foust and Felder applied for admission to the college. They met all qualifications except that they were Negroes. For this reason the Board refused to admit them. They petitioned the Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia County for an order directing the Board to admit them, alleging that their exclusion because of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The State of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia joined in the suit also contending the Board’s action violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Orphans’ Court rejected the constitutional contention and refused to order the applicants’ admission. 4 D. & C. 2d 671 (Orph. Ct. Philadelphia). This was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 386 Pa. 548, 127 A. 2d 287.
The Board which operates Girard College is an agency of the State of Pennsylvania. Therefore, even though the Board was acting as a trustee, its refusal to admit Foust and Felder to the college because they were Negroes was discrimination by the State. Such discrimination is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
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.