Precedent, Parity, and Racial Discrimination: A Federal/State Comparison of the Impact of Brown v. Board of Education

Questions regarding Brown v. Board of Education's short-term effect remain unanswered, particularly its comparative impact on federal district courts and state supreme courts. We test this through an analysis of racial discrimination cases in those venues in the twenty-year period bifurcated by...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Law & society review 2003-12, Vol.37 (4), p.809-826
Main Authors: Romero, David W., Sanders Romero, Francine
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Appellate courts
Boards of education
Comparative analysis
Comparative studies
Courts
Datasets
Decisions
Discrimination
Education
Federal circuit courts
Federal courts
Federal district courts
History
Impact analysis
Judges
Judicial Decisions
Jurisprudence
Law
Legal Cases
Legal systems
Minorities
Plaintiffs
Racial discrimination
Racial segregation
Racism
Schools
Society
Sociology
Sociology of law and criminology
Sociology of law and justice
State courts
Supreme Court decisions
Supreme courts
U.S.A
United States Supreme Court
USA
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Questions regarding Brown v. Board of Education's short-term effect remain unanswered, particularly its comparative impact on federal district courts and state supreme courts. We test this through an analysis of racial discrimination cases in those venues in the twenty-year period bifurcated by the decision in May 1954. Our findings suggest that while federal district courts and state courts were similarly unresponsive to discrimination claims before that date, Brown exerted a significant impact on district court decisions but had little influence at the state level. Furthermore, a third pattern was found in federal appellate courts, where discrimination claims had a high likelihood of prominority decisions even before the Supreme Court directive.
ISSN:0023-9216
1540-5893
DOI:10.1046/j.0023-9216.2003.03704004.x