{"gWnANyR2fIqTPe8o7CMIYR10Kv-4asuYJw2p4T8h":{"page":{"title":"API Reference","description":"","type":"openapi-single","mode":"folder","config":{"expandAllResponses":false,"expandAllModelSections":false,"defaultOpenAllTags":false,"showOperationId":false,"hideTestRequestButton":false,"documentDownloadType":"both","hideModels":false,"orderSchemaPropertiesBy":"alpha","orderRequiredPropertiesFirst":true,"operationTitleSource":"summary","hideClientButton":false},"singlePage":true,"showInSidebar":true,"filepath":"uR3VJoOsnn3GgL9PZ-VPj.yaml","isIndex":false,"uid":"gWnANyR2fIqTPe8o7CMIYR10Kv-4asuYJw2p4T8h","version":"default","breadcrumbs":[{"type":"root-group","path":"/api-reference","uid":"gWnANyR2fIqTPe8o7CMIYR10Kv-4asuYJw2p4T8h","title":"API Reference"}]},"content":{"openapi":"3.1.0","info":{"title":"OpenLaws API Documentation","version":"1.0.4","description":"OpenLaws Legal Data API","contact":{"name":"OpenLaws PBC","url":"https://openlaws.us/api","email":"team@openlaws.us"},"license":{"name":"Commercial","url":"https://openlaws.us/terms"}},"servers":[{"url":"https://api.openlaws.us"}],"tags":[{"name":"Jurisdictions","description":"All data (statutes, regulations, caselaw opinions) in OpenLaws are organized into jurisdictions. This allows you to scope searches and lookups to a specific state or federal jurisdiction (or both)."},{"name":"Laws","description":"Laws represent a specific law type in a Jurisdiction. For example, Code of Federal Regulations belongs to the FED Jurisdiction and is represented by the law_key `FED-CFR`. Florida Statutes belongs to the FL Jurisdiction and is represented by the law_key `FL-STAT`. Note that case law and case opinions are represented as Opinions that belong to Courts and Jurisdictions rather than Laws."},{"name":"Law Divisions","description":"Divisions represent the hierarchical documents that make up statutes, regulations, and constitutions. Each document has a 'path' which uniquely identifies the document and where it resides in the hierarchy of the law."},{"name":"Opinions","description":"Opinions represent published and unpublished case law opinions. Opinions belong to a Court and Jurisdiction."},{"name":"Courts","description":"Courts issue Opinions and belong to a Jurisdiction."}],"paths":{"/api/v1/jurisdictions":{"get":{"summary":"List all Jurisdictions","description":"Returns all valid jurisdictions, coverage data, and metadata for OpenLaws Jurisdictions","tags":["Jurisdictions"],"responses":{"200":{"description":"GET jurisdictions returns all jurisdictions","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Jurisdiction"}}}},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"}},"operationId":"listJurisdictions"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/{law_key}/divisions":{"get":{"summary":"Get a specific Law's Root Divisions","description":"Root divisions are top of the document hierarchy for a law. Typically, these documents are Titles or Agency document types.","tags":["Law Divisions"],"parameters":[{"name":"jurisdiction_key","description":"Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories.","in":"path","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"AK"}},{"name":"law_key","description":"A unique identifier for OpenLaws Laws. A `law_key` is a combination of a jurisdiction_key and an abbreviation of a law type joined by a '-' character.","in":"path","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"AK-CONST"}}],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okArrayOfDivisions","description":"Array of the root Divisions for a Law"},"400":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/badRequest"},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"}},"operationId":"getRootDivisions"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/{law_key}/divisions/{path}":{"get":{"summary":"Get Division by Jurisdiction and OpenLaws path","description":"A precise way of retrieving one Division object with its unique path","tags":["Law Divisions"],"parameters":[{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/lawKeyParam"},{"name":"path","description":"An OpenLaws field that describes the Division's relationship to other documents in the law's hierarchy. Combined with the law_key and effective_date_* fields this creates a unique key for Divisions.","in":"path","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"title_12.chapter_i.part_4.subpart_d.section_4_62"}}],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okSingleDivision","description":"Single Division matching the path"},"400":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/badRequest"},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"},"500":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/serverError"}},"operationId":"getDivsisionsByPath"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/{law_key}/divisions/updates":{"get":{"summary":"(Enterprise Only) Get a list of Divisions that were created or updated after a date.","description":"This query returns a list of DivisionUpdate objects which are a lightweight subset of the Division. DivisionUpdates contain the law_key, path, and effective dates to identify Division which can be queried further for changes. Note that changes to Divisions may not be material. For example, the addition of whitespace or correction of a minor typo from the source text is considered an update. Pagination is supported using RFC-8288 HTTP Headers (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8288).","tags":["Law Divisions"],"parameters":[{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/lawKeyParam"},{"name":"updated_after","description":"Return list of Divisions updated AFTER this ISO Date (UTC). Date must be within 90 days of the current date.","in":"query","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","format":"date","example":"2025-05-01"}},{"name":"limit","in":"query","required":false,"schema":{"type":"integer","minimum":1,"default":100,"maximum":500},"description":"Maximum number of results to return"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/pageParam"}],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okArrayOfDivisionUpdates","description":"An array of DivisionUpdates which contain law_keys, paths, and effective dates to identify which Divisions have been created or changed."},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"}},"operationId":"getDivisionsUpdatedAfter"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/{law_key}/divisions/{starting_path}/updates":{"get":{"summary":"(Enterprise Only) Get a list of Divisions that were created or updated after a date within a subtree of Divisions.","description":"This query returns a list of DivisionUpdate objects within the Division hierarchy beginning at starting_path. DivisionUpdates contain the law_key, path, and effective dates to identify Division which can be queried further for changes. Note that changes to Divisions may not be material. For example, the addition of whitespace or correction of a minor typo from the source text is considered an update. Pagination is supported using RFC-8288 HTTP Headers (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8288).","tags":["Law Divisions"],"parameters":[{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/lawKeyParam"},{"name":"updated_after","description":"Return list of Divisions updated AFTER this ISO Date (UTC). Date must be within 90 days of the current date.","in":"query","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","format":"date","example":"2025-05-01"}},{"name":"starting_path","description":"The starting path to traverse down to find updated Divisions.","in":"path","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"title_12.chapter_i"}},{"name":"limit","in":"query","required":false,"schema":{"type":"integer","minimum":1,"default":100,"maximum":500},"description":"Maximum number of results to return"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/pageParam"}],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okArrayOfDivisionUpdates","description":"An array of DivisionUpdates which contain law_keys, paths, and effective dates to identify which Divisions have been created or changed."},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"}},"operationId":"getDivisionsByPathUpdatedAfter"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/search":{"get":{"summary":"Keyword Search within a Jurisdiction","description":"Heuristic keyword search within a specific Jurisdiction (and optionally, federal Laws at the same time with `with_federal`). The search scope will include statutes, rules, regulations, and constitutions. See \"Keyword Search Case Opinions\" for case law search.","tags":["Law Divisions"],"parameters":[{"name":"jurisdiction_key","in":"path","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"CA"},"description":"Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories."},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/keywordQueryParam"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/queryTypeParam"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/withFederalParam"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/limitParam"}],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okArrayOfDivisions"},"400":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/badRequest"},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"},"500":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/serverError"}},"operationId":"keywordSearchDivisionWithinJurisdiction"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/{law_key}/search":{"get":{"summary":"Keyword Search within a Jurisdiction and a specific law_key for that Jurisdiction","description":"Heuristic keyword search within a specific Jurisdiction and a specific type of law for that jurisdiction, ex: Jurisdiction=TX and law_key=TX-CONST (constitution)","tags":["Law Divisions"],"parameters":[{"name":"jurisdiction_key","in":"path","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"CA"},"description":"Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories."},{"name":"law_key","in":"path","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"CA-RR"},"description":"A unique identifier for OpenLaws Laws. A `law_key` is a combination of a jurisdiction_key and an abbreviation of a law type joined by a '-' character."},{"name":"query","in":"query","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"apple banana"},"description":"One or more keywords to search by"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/queryTypeParam"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/limitParam"}],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okArrayOfDivisions"},"400":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/badRequest"},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"},"500":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/serverError"}},"operationId":"keywordSearchDivisionWithinLaw"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/citations":{"get":{"summary":"Lookup by Jurisdiction and Bluebook legal citation for a statute, regulation, or constitution","description":"We highly recommend this method of looking up Divisions when legal citations are available because it is the most precise way to identify relevant documents.","tags":["Law Divisions"],"parameters":[{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam"},{"name":"query","in":"query","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"12 CFR § 1002.1"},"description":"Bluebook legal citation for a statute, code, rule, regulation, or constitution"}],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okSingleDivision"},"400":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/badRequest"},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"description":"GET by citation for non-existent citation returns a 404","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Error"}}}},"500":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/serverError"}},"operationId":"lookupByBluebookCitation"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws":{"get":{"summary":"Get Laws by Jurisdiction","description":"Jurisdictions, i.e., California, Texas, Federal, contain many laws, e.g., statutes, regulations, court rules, and a constitution.","tags":["Laws"],"parameters":[{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam"}],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okArrayOfLaws"},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"}},"operationId":"getLawsByJurisdiction"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/courts":{"get":{"summary":"Get Courts by Jurisdiction","description":"Lists all the active and inactive courts for a Jurisdiction. Note that federal bankruptcy courts are separate from federal courts.","tags":["Courts"],"parameters":[{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam"}],"responses":{"200":{"description":"List Courts by Jurisdiction","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"type":"array","items":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Court"}}}}},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"}},"operationId":"getCourtsByJurisdiction"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/courts/{court_key}":{"get":{"summary":"Get single Court","description":"Returns a single court identified by the court_key. Court key is also the unique identifier in the CourtListener data set.","tags":["Courts"],"parameters":[{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/courtKeyParam"}],"responses":{"200":{"description":"Get one Court by courtKey","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Court"}}}},"400":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/badRequest"},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"}},"operationId":"getCourt"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/opinions/search":{"get":{"summary":"Keyword Search Case Opinions","description":"BM25 keyword search of case opinion text.","tags":["Opinions"],"parameters":[{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam"},{"name":"query","in":"query","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"elections"},"description":"One or more keywords to search by"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/queryTypeParam"},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/withFederalParam"},{"name":"filing_start_date","description":"Filter opinions to those that were filed on or after this ISO date.","in":"query","required":false,"schema":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/NullableDate"},"examples":{"start_date":{"value":"2020-01-01"},"no_start_date":{"value":"-Infinity"}}},{"name":"filing_end_date","description":"Filter opinions to those that were filed before or on this ISO date.","in":"query","required":false,"schema":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/NullableDate"},"examples":{"end_date":{"value":"2020-12-31"},"no_end_date":{"value":"Infinity"}}},{"name":"court_keys","in":"query","required":false,"schema":{"type":"string","default":false,"example":"ca1,scotus"},"description":"Comma delimited list of court_keys. See GET /jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/courts for valid court_keys. For the FED jurisdiction, 'first_circuit'...'eleventh_circuit', 'dc_circuit', and 'federal_circuit' are also valid values which expand to all courts in that circuit."},{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/limitParam"}],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okArrayOfOpinions"},"400":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/badRequest"},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"},"500":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/serverError"}},"operationId":"keywordSearchOpinions"}},"/api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/opinions/citations":{"get":{"summary":"Lookup Case Opinion by Jurisdiction and Bluebook legal citation for a case","description":"Long form with parties or short form of case citations (volume-number reporter-abbreviation first-page-number) will work.","tags":["Opinions"],"parameters":[{"$ref":"#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam"},{"name":"query","in":"query","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"347 U.S. 483"},"description":"Bluebook legal citation for a case"}],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okArrayOfOpinions"},"400":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/badRequest"},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"},"404":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/notFound"},"500":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/serverError"}},"operationId":"lookupOpinionByBluebookCitation"}},"/api/v1/laws":{"get":{"summary":"Get all Laws","description":"Laws in OpenLaws represent statutes, rules and regulations, and constitutions","tags":["Laws"],"responses":{"200":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/okArrayOfLaws"},"401":{"$ref":"#/components/responses/unauthorized"}},"operationId":"getLaws"}}},"components":{"securitySchemes":{"bearerAuth":{"description":"Authenticate API requests via a bearer token","type":"http","scheme":"bearer","bearerFormat":"JWT"}},"schemas":{"Jurisdiction":{"type":"object","description":"Jurisdictions are the highest abstraction in OpenLaws. They contain codified Laws, Courts, Reporters. Federal is a special case and contains several \"sub-Jurisdictions\" due to the government's scale and complexity.","properties":{"name":{"type":"string","example":"California"},"key":{"type":"string","description":"Unique identifier for the jurisdiction. Often this is the same as postal_abbreviation (CA and TX) but not always (FED, FED-BANKR, MIL, and TRIBAL.)","example":"CA"},"state":{"type":"string","description":"(DEPRECATION WARNING: Use 'key' instead. Will be deprecated in 1.1.0) Unique identifier for the jurisdiction. Often this is the same as postal_abbreviation (CA and TX) but not always (FED)","example":"CA"},"abbreviation":{"type":"string","description":"(FUTURE USE) Bluebook abbreviation for the Jurisdiction if applicable","example":"Cal."},"postal_abbreviation":{"description":"(FUTURE USE)","type":"string","example":"CA"},"laws":{"type":"array","items":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Law"}},"courts":{"description":"(FUTURE USE)","type":"array","items":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Court","example":[]}}},"required":["key","name","laws"]},"Law":{"type":"object","description":"Laws represent one type of codified or administrative law for a specific Jurisdiction. Laws contain Divisions. Please see the Court and Opinion schemas for case law.","properties":{"key":{"type":"string","example":"CA-RR","description":"OpenLaws identifier for the Law."},"jurisdiction_key":{"type":"string","example":"CA","description":"State or province when applicable."},"state":{"type":"string","example":"CA","description":"(Deprecated. Use `jurisdiction` instead.) State or province when applicable."},"law_type":{"type":"string","example":"regulations","description":"Type of Law, including statutes, rules, regulations, court rules, constitution, case law"},"name":{"type":"string","example":"California Code of Regulations","description":"Jurisdiction's name for the Law"},"aliases":{"type":["string","null"],"example":null},"features":{"type":"array","items":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/LawFeature"},"description":"For future use."}},"required":["key","jurisdiction_key","law_type"]},"Court":{"description":"Represents a single Court and closely aligns to CourtListener's data set. Courts contain Opinions.","type":"object","properties":{"key":{"type":"string","example":"scotus","description":"Unique identifier for the court"},"jurisdiction_key":{"type":"string","example":"FED","description":"Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories."},"parent_court_key":{"type":["string","null"],"example":null,"description":"Parent court key if applicable"},"name":{"type":"string","example":"Supreme Court of the United States"},"short_name":{"type":"string","example":"Supreme Court"},"abbreviation":{"type":"string","example":"SCOTUS"},"start_date":{"allOf":[{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/NullableDate"},{"example":"1789-09-24"}]},"end_date":{"allOf":[{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/NullableDate"},{"example":null}]}}},"DivisionUpdate":{"description":"**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** Divisions are the primary building block in OpenLaws. Each Division represents a document at a snapshot in time. Divisions can contain child Divisions (and thus also have parent and ancestor Divisions). OpenLaws strives to closely align with the source material including errors and omissions in the source.","type":"object","properties":{"jurisdiction_key":{"type":"string","example":"FED","description":"Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories."},"law_key":{"type":"string","example":"FED-CFR","description":"A unique identifier for OpenLaws Laws. A `law_key` is a combination of a jurisdiction_key and an abbreviation of a law type."},"path":{"type":"string","example":"title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155.subpart_b.section_155_194","description":"The concatenation of all of the Division's ancestors' labels resulting in a filepath-like string"},"label":{"type":"string","example":"section_155_194","description":"Human-readable identifier for the Division; guaranteed to be unique among its sibling Divisions"},"display_name":{"type":"string","example":"Section 155.194: Catsup","description":"OpenLaws concatenation of the division_type, identifier, and name along with some business logic to create a reliable, human-friendly string to use for display for this Division. For example, 'Title 12: Banking and Finance'"},"openlaws_web_url":{"type":"string","example":"https://static.openlaws.us/laws/fed/cfr/title_21/chapter_i/subchapter_b/part_155/subpart_b/section_155_194","description":"Static web view provided by OpenLaws for display to customers and use as citations for LLM outputs."},"effective_date_start":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Date","example":"1993-01-06","description":"If the source document and annotations contain a starting effective date, this field will be contain an ISO 8601 date. This date is inclusive."},"effective_date_end":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Date","example":"Infinity","description":"If the source document and annotations contain an ending effective date, this field will be contain an ISO 8601 date. This date is inclusive."},"is_repealed":{"type":["boolean","null"],"example":null,"description":"(Experimental) Whether the Division is repealed, contingent repealed, or no longer effective."},"current_as_of":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/NullableDate","description":"**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** The ISO 8601 date of when the last time the Law was checked for changes.","example":"2025-03-01"},"updated_at":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/NullableDate","description":"**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** The ISO 8601 date of when this Division's source was updated.","example":"1993-01-06"},"deleted_on":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/NullableDate","description":"**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** The ISO 8601 date of when this Division was no longer found in the source and removed from OpenLaws.","example":"2024-12-31"}},"required":["jurisdiction_key","law_key","path","effective_date_start","effective_date_end","updated_at"]},"Division":{"description":"Divisions are the primary building block in OpenLaws. Each Division represents a document at a snapshot in time. Divisions can contain child Divisions (and thus also have parent and ancestor Divisions). OpenLaws strives to closely align with the source material including errors and omissions in the source.","type":"object","properties":{"jurisdiction_key":{"type":"string","example":"FED","description":"Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories."},"law_key":{"type":"string","example":"FED-CFR","description":"A unique identifier for OpenLaws Laws. A `law_key` is a combination of a jurisdiction_key and an abbreviation of a law type."},"label":{"type":"string","example":"section_155_194","description":"Human-readable identifier for the Division; guaranteed to be unique among its sibling Divisions"},"path":{"type":"string","example":"title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155.subpart_b.section_155_194","description":"The concatenation of all of the Division's ancestors' labels resulting in a filepath-like string"},"division_type":{"type":"string","example":"section","description":"OpenLaws standardization of the Division document type"},"identifier":{"type":["string","null"],"example":"155.194","description":"The source document's identifier"},"range_end_identifier":{"type":["string","null"],"example":null,"description":"If the Division is part a range, this contains the ending value for the identifier range, e.g., §§ 100 to 200 -> 200 is the range_end_identifier."},"name":{"type":["string","null"],"example":"Catsup","description":"The name of the document from the source document."},"display_name":{"type":"string","example":"Section 155.194: Catsup","description":"OpenLaws concatenation of the division_type, identifier, and name along with some business logic to create a reliable, human-friendly string to use for display for this Division. For example, 'Title 12: Banking and Finance'"},"openlaws_web_url":{"type":"string","example":"https://static.openlaws.us/laws/fed/cfr/title_21/chapter_i/subchapter_b/part_155/subpart_b/section_155_194","description":"Static web view provided by OpenLaws for display to customers and use as citations for LLM outputs."},"effective_date":{"type":"string","example":"1993-01-06...Infinity","description":"(DEPRECATION WARNING: This will be deprecated in favor of effective_date_start and effective_date_end.) If the source document and annotations contain an effective date, this field will be contain the start and end date as a range. Positive and negative infinity indicate the effective date is unbounded."},"effective_date_start":{"allOf":[{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Date"},{"example":"1993-01-06","description":"If the source document and annotations contain a starting effective date, this field will be contain an ISO 8601 date. This date is inclusive."}]},"effective_date_end":{"allOf":[{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Date"},{"example":"Infinity","description":"If the source document and annotations contain an ending effective date, this field will be contain an ISO 8601 date. This date is inclusive."}]},"aliases":{"type":["string","null"],"example":"","description":"Contains short or common names for the Division"},"plaintext_content":{"type":"string","example":"(a) Identity -\n\n (1) Definition. Catsup, ketchup, or catchup is the food prepared from one or any combination of two or more of the following optional tomato ingredients:\n\n (i) Tomato concentrate as defined in § 155.191(a)(1), except that lemon juice, concentrated lemon juice, or safe and suitable organic acids may be used in quantities no greater than necessary to adjust the pH, and in compliance with § 155.191(b).\n\n (ii) The liquid derived from mature tomatoes of the red or reddish varieties Lycopersicum esculentum P. Mill.\n\n (iii) The liquid obtained from the residue from preparing such tomatoes for canning, consisting of peelings and cores with or without such tomatoes or pieces thereof.\n\n (iv) The liquid obtained from the residue from partial extraction of juice from such tomatoes.\n Such liquid is strained so as to exclude skins, seeds, and other coarse or hard substances in accordance with current good manufacturing practice. Prior to straining, food-grade hydrochloric acid may be added to the tomato material in an amount to obtain a pH no lower than 2.0. Such acid is then neutralized with food-grade sodium hydroxide so that the treated tomato material is restored to a pH of 4.2±0.2. The final composition of the food may be adjusted by concentration and/or by the addition of water. The food may contain salt (sodium chloride formed during acid neutralization shall be considered added salt) and is seasoned with ingredients as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The food is preserved by heat sterilization (canning), refrigeration, or freezing. When sealed in a container to be held at ambient temperatures, it is so processed by heat, before or after sealing, as to prevent spoilage.\n\n (2) Ingredients. One or any combination of two or more of the following safe and suitable ingredients in each of the following categories is added to the tomato ingredients specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:\n\n (i) Vinegars.\n\n (ii) Nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners. Such sweeteners if defined in part 168 of this chapter shall be as defined therein.\n\n (iii) Spices, flavoring, onions, or garlic.\n\n (3) Labeling.\n\n (i) The name of the food is “Catsup,” “Ketchup,” or “Catchup.”\n\n (ii) The following shall be included as part of the name or in close proximity to the name of the food:\n (*a*) The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from canning” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(ii) is present.\n\n (*b*) The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from partial extraction of juice” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(iii) is present.\n\n (iii) Label declaration. Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter; except that the name “tomato concentrate” may be used in lieu of the names “tomato puree,” “tomato pulp,” or “tomato paste” and when tomato concentrates are used, the labeling requirements of § 155.191(a)(3)(ii)(a) and (a)(3)(ii)(b) do not apply.\n\n(b) Quality.\n\n (1) The standard of quality for catsup is as follows: The consistency of the finished food is such that its flow is not more than 14 centimeters in 30 seconds at 20 °C when tested in a Bostwick Consistometer in the following manner: Check temperature of mixture and adjust to 20±1 °C. The trough must also be at a temperature close to 20 °C. Adjust end-to-end level of Bostwick Consistometer by means of the spirit level placed in trough of instrument. Side-to-side level may be adjusted by means of the built-in spirit level. Transfer sample to the dry sample chamber of the Bostwick Consistometer. Fill the chamber slightly more than level full, avoiding air bubbles as far as possible. Pass a straight edge across top of chamber starting from the gate end to remove excess product. Release gate of instrument by gradual pressure on lever, holding the instrument down at the same time to prevent its movement as the gate is released. Immediately start the stop watch or interval timer, and after 30 seconds read the maximum distance of flow to the nearest 0.1 centimeter. Clean and dry the instrument and repeat the reading on another portion of sample. Do not wash instrument with hot water if it is to be used immediately for the next determination, as this may result in an increase in temperature of the sample. For highest accuracy, the instrument should be maintained at a temperature of 20±1 °C. If readings vary more than 0.2 centimeter, repeat a third time or until satisfactory agreement is obtained. Report the average of two or more readings, excluding any that appear to be abnormal.\n\n (2) Determine compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).\n\n (3) If the quality of catsup falls below the standard prescribed in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard quality specified in § 130.14(a) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified, but in lieu of such general statement of substandard quality when the quality of the catsup falls below the standard, the label may bear the alternative statement, “Below Standard in Quality-Low Consistency.”\n\n(c) Fill of container.\n\n (1) The standard of fill of container for catsup, as determined by the general method for fill of container prescribed in § 130.12(b) of this chapter, is not less than 90 percent of the total capacity except:\n\n (i) When the food is frozen, or\n\n (ii) When the food is packaged in individual serving-size packages containing 56.7 grams (2 ounces) or less.\n\n (2) Determine compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).\n\n (3) If the catsup falls below the standard of fill prescribed in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard fill as specified in § 130.14(b) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified.","description":"Plaintext content without rich text formatting and markup to define pincite locations. Suitable for use with LLMs."},"markdown_content":{"type":"string","example":"1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a\" display=\"a\" >}} *Identity* -\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_1\" display=\"1\" >}} *Definition.* Catsup, ketchup, or catchup is the food prepared from one or any combination of two or more of the following optional tomato ingredients:\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_1_i\" display=\"i\" >}} Tomato concentrate as defined in § 155.191(a)(1), except that lemon juice, concentrated lemon juice, or safe and suitable organic acids may be used in quantities no greater than necessary to adjust the pH, and in compliance with § 155.191(b).\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_1_ii\" display=\"ii\" >}} The liquid derived from mature tomatoes of the red or reddish varieties *Lycopersicum esculentum* P. Mill.\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_1_iii\" display=\"iii\" >}} The liquid obtained from the residue from preparing such tomatoes for canning, consisting of peelings and cores with or without such tomatoes or pieces thereof.\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_1_iv\" display=\"iv\" >}} The liquid obtained from the residue from partial extraction of juice from such tomatoes.\n\n Such liquid is strained so as to exclude skins, seeds, and other coarse or hard substances in accordance with current good manufacturing practice. Prior to straining, food-grade hydrochloric acid may be added to the tomato material in an amount to obtain a pH no lower than 2.0. Such acid is then neutralized with food-grade sodium hydroxide so that the treated tomato material is restored to a pH of 4.2±0.2. The final composition of the food may be adjusted by concentration and/or by the addition of water. The food may contain salt (sodium chloride formed during acid neutralization shall be considered added salt) and is seasoned with ingredients as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The food is preserved by heat sterilization (canning), refrigeration, or freezing. When sealed in a container to be held at ambient temperatures, it is so processed by heat, before or after sealing, as to prevent spoilage. \n { .parens-lower-roman }\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_2\" display=\"2\" >}} *Ingredients.* One or any combination of two or more of the following safe and suitable ingredients in each of the following categories is added to the tomato ingredients specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_2_i\" display=\"i\" >}} Vinegars.\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_2_ii\" display=\"ii\" >}} Nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners. Such sweeteners if defined in part 168 of this chapter shall be as defined therein.\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_2_iii\" display=\"iii\" >}} Spices, flavoring, onions, or garlic.\n { .parens-lower-roman }\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_3\" display=\"3\" >}} *Labeling.*\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_3_i\" display=\"i\" >}} The name of the food is “Catsup,” “Ketchup,” or “Catchup.”\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_3_ii\" display=\"ii\" >}} The following shall be included as part of the name or in close proximity to the name of the food:\n\n\n (*a*) The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from canning” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(ii) is present.\n\n\n\n (*b*) The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from partial extraction of juice” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(iii) is present.\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_3_iii\" display=\"iii\" >}} *Label declaration.* Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter; except that the name “tomato concentrate” may be used in lieu of the names “tomato puree,” “tomato pulp,” or “tomato paste” and when tomato concentrates are used, the labeling requirements of § 155.191(a)(3)(ii)(*a*) and (a)(3)(ii)(*b*) do not apply.\n { .parens-lower-roman }\n { .parens-decimal }\n1. {{< pincite identifier=\"b\" display=\"b\" >}} *Quality.*\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"b_1\" display=\"1\" >}} The standard of quality for catsup is as follows: The consistency of the finished food is such that its flow is not more than 14 centimeters in 30 seconds at 20 °C when tested in a Bostwick Consistometer in the following manner: Check temperature of mixture and adjust to 20±1 °C. The trough must also be at a temperature close to 20 °C. Adjust end-to-end level of Bostwick Consistometer by means of the spirit level placed in trough of instrument. Side-to-side level may be adjusted by means of the built-in spirit level. Transfer sample to the dry sample chamber of the Bostwick Consistometer. Fill the chamber slightly more than level full, avoiding air bubbles as far as possible. Pass a straight edge across top of chamber starting from the gate end to remove excess product. Release gate of instrument by gradual pressure on lever, holding the instrument down at the same time to prevent its movement as the gate is released. Immediately start the stop watch or interval timer, and after 30 seconds read the maximum distance of flow to the nearest 0.1 centimeter. Clean and dry the instrument and repeat the reading on another portion of sample. Do not wash instrument with hot water if it is to be used immediately for the next determination, as this may result in an increase in temperature of the sample. For highest accuracy, the instrument should be maintained at a temperature of 20±1 °C. If readings vary more than 0.2 centimeter, repeat a third time or until satisfactory agreement is obtained. Report the average of two or more readings, excluding any that appear to be abnormal.\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"b_2\" display=\"2\" >}} Determine compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"b_3\" display=\"3\" >}} If the quality of catsup falls below the standard prescribed in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard quality specified in § 130.14(a) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified, but in lieu of such general statement of substandard quality when the quality of the catsup falls below the standard, the label may bear the alternative statement, “Below Standard in Quality-Low Consistency.”\n { .parens-decimal }\n1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c\" display=\"c\" >}} *Fill of container.*\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c_1\" display=\"1\" >}} The standard of fill of container for catsup, as determined by the general method for fill of container prescribed in § 130.12(b) of this chapter, is not less than 90 percent of the total capacity except:\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c_1_i\" display=\"i\" >}} When the food is frozen, or\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c_1_ii\" display=\"ii\" >}} When the food is packaged in individual serving-size packages containing 56.7 grams (2 ounces) or less.\n { .parens-lower-roman }\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c_2\" display=\"2\" >}} Determine compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c_3\" display=\"3\" >}} If the catsup falls below the standard of fill prescribed in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard fill as specified in § 130.14(b) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified.\n { .parens-decimal }\n{ .parens-lower-alpha }","description":"Rich text content in Commonmark with CSS annotations. Meant to be rendered into human-readable HTML along with the OpenLaws Markdown stylesheet."},"html_content":{"type":"string","example":"

a Identity—(1) Definition. Catsup, ketchup, or catchup is the food prepared from one or any combination of two or more of the following optional tomato ingredients:\n
1. i Tomato concentrate as defined in § 155.191(a)(1), except that lemon juice, concentrated lemon juice, or safe and suitable organic acids may be used in quantities no greater than necessary to adjust the pH, and in compliance with § 155.191(b).
2. ii The liquid derived from mature tomatoes of the red or reddish varieties Lycopersicum esculentum P. Mill.
3. iii The liquid obtained from the residue from preparing such tomatoes for canning, consisting of peelings and cores with or without such tomatoes or pieces thereof.
4. iv The liquid obtained from the residue from partial extraction of juice from such tomatoes.
\n

Such liquid is strained so as to exclude skins, seeds, and other coarse or hard substances in accordance with current good manufacturing practice. Prior to straining, food-grade hydrochloric acid may be added to the tomato material in an amount to obtain a pH no lower than 2.0. Such acid is then neutralized with food-grade sodium hydroxide so that the treated tomato material is restored to a pH of 4.2±0.2. The final composition of the food may be adjusted by concentration and/or by the addition of water. The food may contain salt (sodium chloride formed during acid neutralization shall be considered added salt) and is seasoned with ingredients as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The food is preserved by heat sterilization (canning), refrigeration, or freezing. When sealed in a container to be held at ambient temperatures, it is so processed by heat, before or after sealing, as to prevent spoilage.

2 Ingredients. One or any combination of two or more of the following safe and suitable ingredients in each of the following categories is added to the tomato ingredients specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:\n
1. i Vinegars.
2. ii Nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners. Such sweeteners if defined in part 168 of this chapter shall be as defined therein.
3. iii Spices, flavoring, onions, or garlic.
\n
3 Labeling.\n
1. i The name of the food is “Catsup,” “Ketchup,” or “Catchup.”
2. ii The following shall be included as part of the name or in close proximity to the name of the food:\n
  1. a The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from canning” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(ii) is present.
  2. b The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from partial extraction of juice” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(iii) is present.
  \n
3. iii Label declaration. Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter; except that the name “tomato concentrate” may be used in lieu of the names “tomato puree,” “tomato pulp,” or “tomato paste” and when tomato concentrates are used, the labeling requirements of § 155.191\n
  1. a (3)(ii)(a) and (a)(3)(ii)(b) do not apply.
  2. b Quality.\n
    1. 1 The standard of quality for catsup is as follows: The consistency of the finished food is such that its flow is not more than 14 centimeters in 30 seconds at 20 °C when tested in a Bostwick Consistometer in the following manner: Check temperature of mixture and adjust to 20±1 °C. The trough must also be at a temperature close to 20 °C. Adjust end-to-end level of Bostwick Consistometer by means of the spirit level placed in trough of instrument. Side-to-side level may be adjusted by means of the built-in spirit level. Transfer sample to the dry sample chamber of the Bostwick Consistometer. Fill the chamber slightly more than level full, avoiding air bubbles as far as possible. Pass a straight edge across top of chamber starting from the gate end to remove excess product. Release gate of instrument by gradual pressure on lever, holding the instrument down at the same time to prevent its movement as the gate is released. Immediately start the stop watch or interval timer, and after 30 seconds read the maximum distance of flow to the nearest 0.1 centimeter. Clean and dry the instrument and repeat the reading on another portion of sample. Do not wash instrument with hot water if it is to be used immediately for the next determination, as this may result in an increase in temperature of the sample. For highest accuracy, the instrument should be maintained at a temperature of 20±1 °C. If readings vary more than 0.2 centimeter, repeat a third time or until satisfactory agreement is obtained. Report the average of two or more readings, excluding any that appear to be abnormal.
    2. 2 Determine compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).
    3. 3 If the quality of catsup falls below the standard prescribed in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard quality specified in § 130.14(a) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified, but in lieu of such general statement of substandard quality when the quality of the catsup falls below the standard, the label may bear the alternative statement, “Below Standard in Quality—Low Consistency.”
    \n
  3. c Fill of container. (1) The standard of fill of container for catsup, as determined by the general method for fill of container prescribed in § 130.12(b) of this chapter, is not less than 90 percent of the total capacity except:\n
    1. i When the food is frozen, or
    2. ii When the food is packaged in individual serving-size packages containing 56.7 grams (2 ounces) or less.\n
      1. 2 Determine compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).
      2. 3 If the catsup falls below the standard of fill prescribed in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard fill as specified in § 130.14(b) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified.
      \n
    \n
  \n
\n

","description":"**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** Rich text content rendered from the Markdown to HTML with TailwindCSS styling and OpenLaws' Markdown stylesheet."},"annotations":{"type":["string","null"],"example":"[48 FR 3956, Jan. 28, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 15073, Apr. 17, 1984; 58 FR 2883, Jan. 6, 1993]","description":"Annotations and interpretations if available from the official source."},"display_ancestors":{"type":"array","items":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/DivisionDisplay"},"example":[{"display_name":"Title 21: Food and Drugs","path":"title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155.subpart_b.section_155_194"},{"display_name":"Chapter I: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services","path":"title_21.chapter_i"},{"display_name":"Subchapter B: Food for Human Consumption","path":"title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155.subpart_b.section_155_194"},{"display_name":"Part 155: Canned Vegetables","path":"title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155"},{"display_name":"Subpart B: Requirements for Specific Standardized Canned Vegetables","path":"title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155.subpart_b"}],"description":"**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** Array of ancestors Divisions with display_name and paths. This can be used to render navigation breadcrumbs or to give LLMs context for the current Division."},"display_children":{"type":"array","items":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/DivisionDisplay"},"example":[],"description":"**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** Array of children Divisions with display_name and paths. This can be used to render a list of child Divisions for the current Division."},"source_url":{"type":"string","example":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-155/subpart-B/section-155.194","description":"**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** Authoritative Source URL for law. Deep-links to the source where supported."},"current_as_of":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/NullableDate","description":"**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** The ISO 8601 date of when the last time the Law was checked for changes.","example":"2025-03-01"},"updated_at":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/NullableDate","description":"**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** The ISO 8601 date of when this Division's source was updated.","example":"1993-01-06"},"is_repealed":{"type":["boolean","null"],"example":null,"description":"(Experimental) Whether the Division is repealed, contingent repealed, or no longer effective."},"is_reserved":{"type":["boolean","null"],"example":null,"description":"(Experimental) Whether the Division identifier and range_end_identifier are reserved by the Jurisdiction."},"renumbered":{"type":["string","null"],"example":null,"description":"(Experimental) Contains the new identifier and location where the Division was renumbered to."}},"required":["jurisdiction_key","law_key","label","path","division_type","identifier","range_end_identifier","name","display_name","effective_date_start","effective_date_end","plaintext_content","markdown_content","annotations","display_ancestors","display_children","is_repealed","renumbered"]},"DivisionDisplay":{"description":"Minimal subset of Division properties. Useful for building lists and drill downs of Division hierarchies.","type":"object","properties":{"display_name":{"type":"string","example":"Title 1: Government","description":"OpenLaws concatenation of the division_type, identifier, and name along with some business logic to create a reliable, human-friendly string to use for display for this Division. For example, 'Title 12: Banking and Finance'"},"path":{"type":"string","example":"title_1","description":"The concatenation of all of the Division's ancestors' labels resulting in a filepath-like string"}},"required":["display_name","path"]},"Opinion":{"description":"Court opinions that resembles the CourtListener schema but is modeled to be focused on the Opinion as the central concept.","type":"object","properties":{"case_name":{"type":"string","example":"Brown v. Board of Education","description":"Full case name including first and second parties"},"jurisdiction_key":{"type":"string","example":"FED","description":"Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories."},"court":{"description":"Court","$ref":"#/components/schemas/Court"},"docket_number":{"type":"string","example":"NO. 1","description":"Court docket identifier for the opinion"},"date_filed":{"type":"string","format":"date","example":"1954-05-17","description":"Date which the opinion was filed (ISO formatted date)"},"judges":{"type":"string","example":"Warren","description":"Name of judges if available"},"attorneys":{"type":"string","example":"Robert L. Carter argued the cause for appellants in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for appellants in No. 2 on the original argument and Spottswood W. Robinson, III, for appellants in No. 4 on the original argument, and both argued the causes for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. Louis L. Redding and Jack Green-berg argued the cause for respondents in No. 10 on the original argument and Jack Greenberg and Thurgood Marshall on the reargument., On the briefs were Robert L. Carter, Thurgood Marshall, Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Louis L. Redding, Jack Greenberg, George E. C. Hayes, William R. Ming, Jr., Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, Jr., Charles S. Scott, Frank D. Reeves, Harold R. Boulware and Oliver W. Hill for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents in No. 10; George M. Johnson for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4; and Loren Miller for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4. Arthur D. Shores and A. T. Walden were on the Statement as to Jurisdiction and a brief opposing a Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in No. 2., Paul E. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General of Kansas, argued the cause for appellees in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney General., John W. Davis argued the cause for appellees in No. 2 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. With him on the briefs in No. 2 were T. C. Callison, Attorney General of South Carolina, Robert McC. Figg, Jr., S. E. Rogers, William R. Meagher and Taggart Whipple., J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore argued the cause for appellees in No. 4 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. On the briefs in No. 4 were J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General, and Henry T. Wickham, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore, Archibald O. Robertson, John W. Riely and T. Justin Moore, Jr. for the Prince Edward County School Authorities, appellees., H. Albert Young, Attorney General of Delaware, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 10 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Louis J. Finger, Special Deputy Attorney General., By special leave of Court, Assistant Attorney General Rankin argued the cause for the United States on the reargument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10. With him on the brief were Attorney General Brownell, Philip Elman, Leon Ulman, William J. Lamont and M. Magdelena Schoch. James P. McGranery, then Attorney General, and Philip Elman filed a brief for the United States on the original argument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10., Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 were filed by Shad Polier, Will Maslow and Joseph B. Robison for the American Jewish Congress; by Edwin J. Lukas, Arnold Forster, Arthur Garfield Hays, Frank E. Karelsen, Leonard Haas, Saburo Kido and Theodore Leskes for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; and by John Ligtenberg and Selma M. Borchardt for the American Federation of Teachers. Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 and respondents in No. 10 were filed by Arthur J. Goldberg and Thomas E. Harris for the Congress of Industrial Organizations and by Phineas Indritz for the American Veterans Committee, Inc.","description":"Name of attorneys if available"},"first_party":{"type":"string","example":"Brown"},"second_party":{"type":"string","example":"Board of Education"},"precedential_status":{"type":"string","example":"Published","description":"Published or unpublished"},"headmatter":{"type":"string","example":"## Parties\nBROWN et al.\n\nv.\n\nBOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA et al.\n\n## Docket Number\nNO. 1.\n\n## Other Date\nArgued December 9, 1952.\n\n## Other Date\nReargued December 8, 1953.\n\n## Decision Date\nDecided May 17, 1954.\n\n## Attorneys\n\nRobert L. Carter\n\nargued the cause for appellants in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument.\n\nThurgood Marshall\n\nargued the cause for appellants in No. 2 on the original argument and\n\nSpottswood W. Robinson, III,\n\nfor appellants in No. 4 on the original argument, and both argued the causes for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument.\n\nLouis L. Redding\n\nand\n\nJack Green-berg\n\nargued the cause for respondents in No. 10 on the original argument and\n\nJack Greenberg\n\nand\n\nThurgood Marshall\n\non the reargument.\n\n## Attorneys\nOn the briefs were\n\nRobert L. Carter, Thurgood Marshall, Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Louis L. Redding, Jack Greenberg, George E. C. Hayes, William R. Ming, Jr., Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, Jr., Charles S. Scott, Frank D. Reeves, Harold R. Boulware\n\nand\n\nOliver W. Hill\n\nfor appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents in No. 10;\n\nGeorge M. Johnson\n\nfor appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4; and\n\nLoren Miller\n\nfor appellants in Nos. 2 and 4.\n\nArthur D. Shores\n\nand\n\nA. T. Walden\n\nwere on the Statement as to Jurisdiction and a brief opposing a Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in No. 2.\n\n## Attorneys\n\nPaul E. Wilson,\n\nAssistant Attorney General of Kansas, argued the cause for appellees in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was\n\nHarold R. Fatzer,\n\nAttorney General.\n\n## Attorneys\n\nJohn W. Davis\n\nargued the cause for appellees in No. 2 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. With him on the briefs in No. 2 were\n\nT. C. Callison,\n\nAttorney General of South Carolina,\n\nRobert McC. Figg, Jr., S. E. Rogers, William R. Meagher\n\nand\n\nTaggart Whipple.\n\n\n## Attorneys\n\nJ. Lindsay Almond, Jr.,\n\nAttorney General of Virginia, and\n\nT. Justin Moore\n\nargued the cause for appellees in No. 4 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. On the briefs in No. 4 were\n\nJ. Lindsay Almond, Jr.,\n\nAttorney General, and\n\nHenry T. Wickham,\n\nSpecial Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Virginia, and\n\nT. Justin Moore, Archibald O. Robertson, John W. Riely\n\nand\n\nT. Justin Moore, Jr.\n\nfor the Prince Edward County School Authorities, appellees.\n\n## Attorneys\n\nH. Albert Young,\n\nAttorney General of Delaware, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 10 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was\n\nLouis J. Finger,\n\nSpecial Deputy Attorney General.\n\n## Attorneys\nBy special leave of Court,\n\nAssistant Attorney General Rankin\n\nargued the cause for the United States on the reargument, as\n\namicus curiae,\n\nurging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10. With him on the brief were\n\nAttorney General Brownell, Philip Elman, Leon Ulman, William J. Lamont\n\nand\n\nM. Magdelena Schoch. James P. McGranery,\n\nthen Attorney General, and\n\nPhilip Elman\n\nfiled a brief for the United States on the original argument, as\n\namicus curiae,\n\nurging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10.\n\n## Attorneys\nBriefs of\n\namici curiae\n\nsupporting appellants in No. 1 were filed by\n\nShad Polier, Will Maslow\n\nand\n\nJoseph B. Robison\n\nfor the American Jewish Congress; by\n\nEdwin J. Lukas, Arnold Forster, Arthur Garfield Hays, Frank E. Karelsen, Leonard Haas, Saburo Kido\n\nand\n\nTheodore Leskes\n\nfor the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; and by\n\nJohn Ligtenberg\n\nand\n\nSelma M. Borchardt\n\nfor the American Federation of Teachers. Briefs of\n\namici curiae\n\nsupporting appellants in No. 1 and respondents in No. 10 were filed by\n\nArthur J. Goldberg\n\nand\n\nThomas E. Harris\n\nfor the Congress of Industrial Organizations and by\n\nPhineas Indritz\n\nfor the American Veterans Committee, Inc.","description":"Markdown of headmatter if available"},"extracted_by_ocr":{"type":"boolean","example":false,"description":"Whether or not OCR was used to extract the text"},"plaintext_content":{"type":"string","example":"347 U.S. 483 (1954)\nBROWN ET AL.\nv.\nBOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL.\nNo. 1.\nSupreme Court of United States.\nArgued December 9, 1952.\nReargued December 8, 1953.\nDecided May 17, 1954.\nAPPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.[*]*484 Robert L. Carter argued the cause for appellants in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for appellants in No. 2 on the original argument and Spottswood W. Robinson, III, for appellants in No. 4 on the original argument, and both argued the causes for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. Louis L. Redding and Jack Greenberg argued the cause for respondents in No. 10 on the original argument and Jack Greenberg and Thurgood Marshall on the reargument.\nOn the briefs were Robert L. Carter, Thurgood Marshall, Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Louis L. Redding, Jack Greenberg, George E. C. Hayes, William R. Ming, Jr., Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, Jr., Charles S. Scott, Frank D. Reeves, Harold R. Boulware and Oliver W. Hill for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents in No. 10; George M. Johnson for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4; and Loren Miller for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4. Arthur D. Shores and A. T. Walden were on the Statement as to Jurisdiction and a brief opposing a Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in No. 2.\nPaul E. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General of Kansas, argued the cause for appellees in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney General.\nJohn W. Davis argued the cause for appellees in No. 2 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. With him on the briefs in No. 2 were T. C. Callison, Attorney General of South Carolina, Robert McC. Figg, Jr., S. E. Rogers, William R. Meagher and Taggart Whipple.\n*485 J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore argued the cause for appellees in No. 4 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. On the briefs in No. 4 were J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General, and Henry T. Wickham, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore, Archibald G. Robertson, John W. Riely and T. Justin Moore, Jr. for the Prince Edward County School Authorities, appellees.\nH. Albert Young, Attorney General of Delaware, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 10 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Louis J. Finger, Special Deputy Attorney General.\nBy special leave of Court, Assistant Attorney General Rankin argued the cause for the United States on the reargument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10. With him on the brief were Attorney General Brownell, Philip Elman, Leon Ulman, William J. Lamont and M. Magdelena Schoch. James P. McGranery, then Attorney General, and Philip Elman filed a brief for the United States on the original argument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10.\nBriefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 were filed by Shad Polier, Will Maslow and Joseph B. Robison for the American Jewish Congress; by Edwin J. Lukas, Arnold Forster, Arthur Garfield Hays, Frank E. Karelsen, Leonard Haas, Saburo Kido and Theodore Leskes for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; and by John Ligtenberg and Selma M. Borchardt for the American Federation of Teachers. Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 and respondents in No. 10 were filed by Arthur J. Goldberg and Thomas E. Harris *486 for the Congress of Industrial Organizations and by Phineas Indritz for the American Veterans Committee, Inc.\nMR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.\nThese cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.[1]\n*487 In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, *488 they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called \"separate but equal\" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.\nThe plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not \"equal\" and cannot be made \"equal,\" and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction.[2] Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.[3]\n*489 Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among \"all persons born or naturalized in the United States.\" Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.\nAn additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment's history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public education at that time.[4] In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported *490 by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states; and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.\nIn the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race.[5] The doctrine of *491 \"separate but equal\" did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation.[6] American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the \"separate but equal\" doctrine in the field of public education.[7] In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged.[8] In more recent cases, all on the graduate school *492 level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to re-examine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.\nIn the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other \"tangible\" factors.[9] Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.\nIn approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout *493 the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.\nToday, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.\nWe come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other \"tangible\" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.\nIn Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on \"those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.\" In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: \". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.\" *494 Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:\n\"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.\"[10]\nWhatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority.[11] Any language *495 in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.\nWe conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of \"separate but equal\" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[12]\nBecause these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term.[13] The Attorney General *496 of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.[14]\nIt is so ordered.\nNOTES\n[*] Together with No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953.\n[1] In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute which permits, but does not require, cities of more than 15,000 population to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students. Kan. Gen. Stat. § 72-1724 (1949). Pursuant to that authority, the Topeka Board of Education elected to establish segregated elementary schools. Other public schools in the community, however, are operated on a nonsegregated basis. The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon Negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the Negro and white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. 98 F. Supp. 797. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S. C. § 1253.\n\nIn the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in Clarendon County. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. S. C. Const., Art. XI, § 7; S. C. Code § 5377 (1942). The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The court found that the Negro schools were inferior to the white schools and ordered the defendants to begin immediately to equalize the facilities. But the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 98 F. Supp. 529. This Court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for the purpose of obtaining the court's views on a report filed by the defendants concerning the progress made in the equalization program. 342 U.S. 350. On remand, the District Court found that substantial equality had been achieved except for buildings and that the defendants were proceeding to rectify this inequality as well. 103 F. Supp. 920. The case is again here on direct appeal under 28 U.S. C. § 1253.\nIn the Virginia case, Davis v. County School Board, the plaintiffs are Negro children of high school age residing in Prince Edward county. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Va. Const., § 140; Va. Code § 22-221 (1950). The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The court found the Negro school inferior in physical plant, curricula, and transportation, and ordered the defendants forthwith to provide substantially equal curricula and transportation and to \"proceed with all reasonable diligence and dispatch to remove\" the inequality in physical plant. But, as in the South Carolina case, the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 103 F. Supp. 337. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S. C. § 1253.\nIn the Delaware case, Gebhart v. Belton, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in New Castle County. They brought this action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Del. Const., Art. X, § 2; Del. Rev. Code § 2631 (1935). The Chancellor gave judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered their immediate admission to schools previously attended only by white children, on the ground that the Negro schools were inferior with respect to teacher training, pupil-teacher ratio, extracurricular activities, physical plant, and time and distance involved in travel. 87 A.2d 862. The Chancellor also found that segregation itself results in an inferior education for Negro children (see note 10, infra), but did not rest his decision on that ground. Id., at 865. The Chancellor's decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Delaware, which intimated, however, that the defendants might be able to obtain a modification of the decree after equalization of the Negro and white schools had been accomplished. 91 A.2d 137, 152. The defendants, contending only that the Delaware courts had erred in ordering the immediate admission of the Negro plaintiffs to the white schools, applied to this Court for certiorari. The writ was granted, 344 U.S. 891. The plaintiffs, who were successful below, did not submit a cross-petition.\n[2] 344 U.S. 1, 141, 891.\n[3] 345 U.S. 972. The Attorney General of the United States participated both Terms as amicus curiae.\n[4] For a general study of the development of public education prior to the Amendment, see Butts and Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture (1953), Pts. I, II; Cubberley, Public Education in the United States (1934 ed.), cc. II-XII. School practices current at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment are described in Butts and Cremin, supra, at 269-275; Cubberley, supra, at 288-339, 408-431; Knight, Public Education in the South (1922), cc. VIII, IX. See also H. Ex. Doc. No. 315, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. (1871). Although the demand for free public schools followed substantially the same pattern in both the North and the South, the development in the South did not begin to gain momentum until about 1850, some twenty years after that in the North. The reasons for the somewhat slower development in the South (e. g., the rural character of the South and the different regional attitudes toward state assistance) are well explained in Cubberley, supra, at 408-423. In the country as a whole, but particularly in the South, the War virtually stopped all progress in public education. Id., at 427-428. The low status of Negro education in all sections of the country, both before and immediately after the War, is described in Beale, A History of Freedom of Teaching in American Schools (1941), 112-132, 175-195. Compulsory school attendance laws were not generally adopted until after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was not until 1918 that such laws were in force in all the states. Cubberley, supra, at 563-565.\n[5] Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 67-72 (1873); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 307-308 (1880):\n\n\"It ordains that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What is this but declaring that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color? The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable to the colored race,the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored,exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race.\"\nSee also Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (1880); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 344-345 (1880).\n[6] The doctrine apparently originated in Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass. 198, 206 (1850), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a state constitutional guarantee of equality. Segregation in Boston public schools was eliminated in 1855. Mass. Acts 1855, c. 256. But elsewhere in the North segregation in public education has persisted in some communities until recent years. It is apparent that such segregation has long been a nationwide problem, not merely one of sectional concern.\n[7] See also Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908).\n[8] In the Cumming case, Negro taxpayers sought an injunction requiring the defendant school board to discontinue the operation of a high school for white children until the board resumed operation of a high school for Negro children. Similarly, in the Gong Lum case, the plaintiff, a child of Chinese descent, contended only that state authorities had misapplied the doctrine by classifying him with Negro children and requiring him to attend a Negro school.\n[9] In the Kansas case, the court below found substantial equality as to all such factors. 98 F. Supp. 797, 798. In the South Carolina case, the court below found that the defendants were proceeding \"promptly and in good faith to comply with the court's decree.\" 103 F. Supp. 920, 921. In the Virginia case, the court below noted that the equalization program was already \"afoot and progressing\" (103 F. Supp. 337, 341); since then, we have been advised, in the Virginia Attorney General's brief on reargument, that the program has now been completed. In the Delaware case, the court below similarly noted that the state's equalization program was well under way. 91 A.2d 137, 149.\n[10] A similar finding was made in the Delaware case: \"I conclude from the testimony that in our Delaware society, State-imposed segregation in education itself results in the Negro children, as a class, receiving educational opportunities which are substantially inferior to those available to white children otherwise similarly situated.\" 87 A.2d 862, 865.\n[11] K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., (1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944).\n[12] See Bolling v. Sharpe, post, p. 497, concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.\n[13] \"4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment\n\n\"(a) would a decree necessarily follow providing that, within the limits set by normal geographic school districting, Negro children should forthwith be admitted to schools of their choice, or\n\"(b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be brought about from existing segregated systems to a system not based on color distinctions?\n\"5. On the assumption on which questions 4 (a) and (b) are based, and assuming further that this Court will exercise its equity powers to the end described in question 4 (b),\n\"(a) should this Court formulate detailed decrees in these cases;\n\"(b) if so, what specific issues should the decrees reach;\n\"(c) should this Court appoint a special master to hear evidence with a view to recommending specific terms for such decrees;\n\"(d) should this Court remand to the courts of first instance with directions to frame decrees in these cases, and if so what general directions should the decrees of this Court include and what procedures should the courts of first instance follow in arriving at the specific terms of more detailed decrees?\"\n[14] See Rule 42, Revised Rules of this Court (effective July 1, 1954).","description":"Plain text representation of the opinion text, if available. Otherwise, empty string."},"updated_at":[{"allOf":[{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/DateTime"},{"example":"2023-08-02T22:56:54Z"}]}],"citations":{"description":"Array of possible citations for the case. Can be empty for unpublished opinions.","type":"array","items":{"type":"string"},"example":["1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094","347 U.S. 483","74 S. Ct. 686","98 L. Ed. 2d 873","98 L. Ed. 873","53 Ohio Op. 326","38 A.L.R. 2d 1180"]}},"required":["case_name","jurisdiction_key","court"]},"Error":{"description":"RFC9457 Problem Details","type":"object","properties":{"status":{"type":"integer","example":404},"title":{"type":"string"},"instance":{"type":"string"},"type":{"type":"string"},"details":{"type":"string"},"errors":{"type":"array","items":{"type":"string"}}},"required":["status","title"]},"LawFeature":{"description":"Describes whether a Law has a type of data, e.g., rich text content, formatted tables.","type":"object","properties":{"name":{"type":"string"},"available":{"type":"boolean"}}},"Date":{"description":"ISO Date with additional support for positive and negative Infinity values to represent ranges.","type":"string","oneOf":[{"type":"string","format":"date","description":"An ISO 8601 date string (e.g., \"2025-04-17\").","example":"2025-12-31"},{"type":"string","enum":["Infinity","-Infinity"],"description":"Represents positive infinity (\"Infinity\") or negative infinity (\"-Infinity\")."},{"type":"null","description":"Represents an unset or not applicable date."}],"example":"Infinity"},"NullableDate":{"description":"Nullable ISO 8601 Date","type":["string","null"],"format":"date","example":"1776-04-01"},"DateTime":{"description":"ISO 8601 DateTime","type":"string","format":"date-time"}},"parameters":{"jurisdictionKeyParam":{"name":"jurisdiction_key","in":"path","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"FED"},"description":"Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories."},"keywordQueryParam":{"name":"query","in":"query","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"apple"},"description":"One or more keywords to search by"},"citationQueryParam":{"name":"query","in":"query","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"48 CFR 52.249-2"},"description":"Bluebook legal citation for a statute, code, rule, regulation, or constitution"},"queryTypeParam":{"name":"type","in":"query","required":false,"schema":{"type":"string","default":"or","enum":["or","and","phrase"]},"description":"Search type. Default is 'or'."},"lawKeyParam":{"name":"law_key","in":"path","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"FED-CFR"},"description":"A unique identifier for OpenLaws Laws. A `law_key` is a combination of a jurisdiction_key and an abbreviation of a law type joined by a '-' character."},"courtKeyParam":{"name":"court_key","in":"path","required":true,"schema":{"type":"string","example":"scotus"},"description":"Unique identifier for a Court. See the /jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/courts endpoint for possible values."},"withFederalParam":{"name":"with_federal","in":"query","required":false,"schema":{"type":"boolean","default":false},"description":"When with_federal=`true` with a state jurisdiction_key argument, the Federal jurisdiction will also be included in the search scope."},"limitParam":{"name":"limit","in":"query","required":false,"schema":{"type":"integer","minimum":1,"default":10},"description":"Maximum number of results to return"},"pageParam":{"name":"page","in":"query","required":false,"schema":{"type":"string"},"description":"Combines with `limit` to implement cursor-based pagination. This parameter sets the cursor to the next page of data."}},"responses":{"okArrayOfLaws":{"description":"Array of Laws","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"type":"array","items":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Law"}}}}},"okSingleDivision":{"description":"Single Division","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Division"}}}},"okArrayOfDivisions":{"description":"Array of Divisions","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"type":"array","items":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Division"}}}}},"okArrayOfDivisionUpdates":{"description":"Array of DivisionUpdates","headers":{"link":{"description":"Comma-separated list of RFC-8288 links. The URL will be enclosed by angle brackets. A semicolon will separate the URL from the relationship description. The relationship will be a key-value pair in the form of rel=\"{{relationship}}\". The relationship will either be \"first\" or \"next\". This describes which page the related URL will fetch.","schema":{"type":"string","example":"; rel=\"first\", ; rel=\"next\""}},"current-page":{"description":"Page ID for the current page","schema":{"type":"string","example":"eyJwYXRoIjoidGl0bGVfMTYuY2hhcHRlcl84Ny5zZWN0aW9uXzY4MDMiLCJpZCI6IjA2YTVlOTY2LWFkZTQtNDZiZC1hM2VlLTcxZGZmZjk0Zjk1ZiJ9"}},"page-items":{"description":"Number of items on each page. This matches the limit param.","schema":{"type":"integer","example":200}}},"content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"type":"array","items":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/DivisionUpdate"}}}}},"okArrayOfOpinions":{"description":"Array of Opinions","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"type":"array","items":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Opinion"}}}}},"unauthorized":{"description":"401 Unauthorized. Please check your API Bearer token.","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Error"}}}},"badRequest":{"description":"400 Bad Request. Please check your jurisdiction and citation format.","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Error"}}}},"notFound":{"description":"404 Not Found","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Error"}}}},"serverError":{"description":"500 Internal Server Error","content":{"application/json":{"schema":{"$ref":"#/components/schemas/Error"}}}}}},"security":[{"bearerAuth":[]}],"x-ext-urls":{}}}}