( A) Although the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause , like the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to the states, the concepts of equal protection and due process are not mutually exclusive. P. 499.
( B ) The discrimination may be so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process. P. 499.
( C ) Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective , and thus imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of Clause Due process . Pp . 499-500 .
( D ) In view of the decision of this Court in the Brown v. Board of Education, ante, p. 483, that the Constitution prohibits states from maintaining racially segregated public schools , it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution imposes a duty lower than the Federal Government . P. 500.
( E) The case is restored to the file for further discussion on the items specified on the form of decree. P. 500.
George EC Hayes and James M. Nabrit , Jr. argued the cause for petitioners in the original argument and on the reargument . With them on the briefs were George M. Johnson and Herbert O. Reid , Jr. Charles W. Quick was also in the writing of the new defense .
Milton D. Korman argued the cause for respondents in the original argument and on the reargument . With him on the briefs were Vernon E. West , Chester H. Gray and Lyman J. Umstead . [347 U.S. 497 , 498 ]
With special permission from the Court of Justice , Assistant Attorney General Rankin argued the cause of the new defense of the United States, as amicus curiae , urging reversal . With him on the brief were Attorney General Brownell, Philip Elman , Leon Ulman, William J. Lamont and M. Magdalena Schoch . James P. McGranery , then Attorney General , and Philip Elman filed a brief on the original argument for the United States, as amicus curiae , urging reversal .
Amicus curiae supporting petitioners were filed by S. Walter Shine , Sanford H. Bolz and Samuel B. Groner by the American Council on Human Rights and others, . By John Ligtenberg and Selma M. Borchardt for the American Federation of Teachers, and Phineas Indritz the American Veterans Committee , Inc.
MR . CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case challenges the validity of segregation in the public schools of the District of Columbia. The petitioners , minors of the Negro race , argues that such segregation deprives them of due process under the Fifth Amendment . They were denied admission to public schools attended by white children solely because of their race. They sought the help of the District Court for the District of Columbia, in obtaining admission. That court dismissed his complaint . The Court granted a writ of certiorari before judgment in the Court of Appeal , because of the importance of the constitutional question presented. 344 U.S. 873 .
We have this day held that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from maintaining racially segregated public schools . 1 legal problem in the District of Columbia is somewhat [347 U.S. 497 , 499 ] different , however . The Fifth Amendment , which is applicable in the District of Columbia, does not contain an equal protection clause as does the Fourteenth Amendment which applies only to the states. But the concepts of equal protection and due process , both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive. The "equal protection of the laws " is a more explicit guarantee of injustice