Bell v. Maryland
Bell v. Maryland | |
---|---|
Subsequent | 236 Md. 356, 204 A.2d 54 (1964) (upholding conviction); 236 Md. 356, rehearing granted and conviction reversed (April 9, 1965). |
Holding | |
The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded to the Court of Appeals of Maryland to allow consideration whether a change in state law should result in dismissal of the convictions. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Brennan, joined by Warren, Clark, Stewart, Goldberg |
Concurrence | Douglas |
Concurrence | Goldberg, joined by Warren, Douglas |
Dissent | Black, joined by Harlan, White |
Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (1964), provided an opportunity for the
Background
In 1960, twelve African American students were part of a group, which conducted a
Decision
Although the Court had been briefed regarding whether the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment were applicable to the
The concurring opinion by Justice Goldberg states that while the majority opinion is correct, if the case were properly before the Court, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the cases should be vacated. The concurring opinion by Justice Douglas would reach the merits of the case and vacate the convictions with direction that the cases be dismissed. The dissenting opinion by Justice Black would affirm the decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to the convictions for criminal trespass on private property.
Critical response
Bell v. Maryland was one of five cases involving
Subsequent developments
The convictions were vacated by the Court of Appeals of Maryland on April 9, 1965, and the City of Baltimore was directed to pay the cost of the appeal to the Supreme Court of $462.93 to Robert M. Bell,[3] the named defendant in the case. Robert Bell's listing as the named defendant was accidental as his name was alphabetically first among the thirteen arrested students.[4]
The Bell case was remanded by the Supreme Court essentially to determine whether a pending conviction for activity in protest of segregation should be vacated when the segregated activity became proscribed by later state legislation. The Supreme Court later answered this question affirmatively in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306 (1964), for prosecutions for activities protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Robert M. Bell later became an attorney and in 1984 was appointed as a judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals, a court that had ruled against him in Bell v. Maryland, and where he became its Chief Judge in 1996. That court's prior Chief Judge was Robert C. Murphy, who when he had been a deputy attorney general attempted to uphold Bell's trespassing conviction for the sit-in and is listed by name on the state's brief to the Supreme Court in the case.[5]
The Maryland State Archives, as a teaching tool, has posted all of the legal papers associated with the case from each of its phases online.[6]
See also
- Civil Rights Movement
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 378
References
- ^ Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (1964).
- ^ a b c Webster, McKenzie. "The Warren Court's Struggle With the Sit-In Cases and the Constitutionality of Segregation in Places of Public Accommodations". Journal of Law and Politics. 17 (Spring 2001): 373–407.
- ^ Court of Appeals of Maryland order on rehearing (April 9, 2008)
- ^ Reynolds, William L. (2002). "The Legal History of the Great Sit-In Case of Bell v. Maryland". Maryland Law Review. 61: 761–794.
- ^ 12 L. Ed.2d 1335-36 (Briefs of Counsel in Bell v. Maryland)
- ^ "Desegregation of Maryland's Restaurants: Robert Mack Bell v. Maryland". Teaching American History in Maryland: Documents for the Classroom. Maryland State Archives. Archived from the original on October 20, 2008. Retrieved May 26, 2008.
External links
- Text of Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (1964) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)