-
1.1 Sidney Redmond, NAACP Attorney, Saint Louis, Missouri 1930s
Lenoir, a member of the St. Louis branch of the NAACP, contacted Sidney Redmond, the branch’s legal consultant, about possible legal action. Redmond passed the information on to the national headquarters and their head of legal services, Charles Hamilton Houston.
-
1.2 NAACP Headquarters, New York City, 1930s
Although Houston had scored a minor victory in the 1935 Murray v Pearson case which allowed African Americans to attend the University of Maryland Law School, the case only affected that state’s jurisdiction due to the decision originating from the Maryland State Supreme Court. It was Houston’s intention to move to the national level.
For the NAACP, Lloyd Gaines was the ideal client; well spoken, intelligent and humble; and he was a citizen of the state of Missouri where the laws in question were enforced. Gaines’ case would be the main focus for Houston and the NAACP for the next three years.
-
1.3 Charles Hamilton Houston, NAACP Chief Attorney, 1930-54
The NAACP’s legal team, which eventually included Thurgood Marshall, had a strategy in mind for confronting the Plessy v Ferguson “separate but equal” Supreme Court decision of 1896. Walter White, the NAACP President assisted Houston in developing the plan.
By concentrating on the “equal” aspect of Plessy, the NAACP would attempt to make “separate but equal” a financial impossibility for states toeing the line of “Jim Crow” laws. In the words of Charles Hamilton Houston, “we are going to bleed them white.”
-
1.4 Henry D. Espy, NAACP Attorney, Saint Louis, Missouri
Houston, Redmond and St. Louis attorney Cecil Espy began forming their case. The NAACP, on behalf of Lloyd Gaines, petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the Boone County Circuit Court.
-
1.6 Lloyd Hogsett, University of Missouri Legal Counsel
By March, 1936, the University of Missouri formally rejected Gaines because Missouri law would not permit a person of African descent to enter a white school. Within three weeks, the NAACP petitioned the court asking the University of Missouri to open its doors to Gaines on the grounds that it was the only public law school in Missouri.
-
1.8 Chicago Defender article "STIFF FIGHT IS SEEN IN MO. U. JIM CROW SUIT"
The NAACP argued that the 14th Amendment left the court with no other alternative than to order the admission of Gaines to Missouri. Judge W. M. Dinwiddie set July 10, 1936, for the presentation of oral arguments.
Lloyd Gaines and the NAACP were ready to do battle.
-
2.1 Boone County Courthouse, Columbia, Missouri
July 10, 1936 was an extremely warm day in central Missouri when Lloyd Gaines, accompanied by his attorneys, arrived at the Boone County Courthouse in Columbia, Missouri to begin deliberations in the historic Gaines v Canada case.
-
2.2 Lloyd Gaines
Since Sy Canada was the Registrar at the University of Missouri his name was on the petition, but Gaines was, in fact, taking on the government and Constitution of the State of Missouri. In their opening arguments, Gaines’ legal team recounted their allegations against the university, charging that the school violated Gaines’ civil rights, in particular those rights covered by the 14th Amendment.
-
2.3 University of Missouri building
The university’s defense, led by William Hogsett, countered that the University was bound by law to reject Gaines’ application and stated that Lincoln University had to provide higher education for Negroes. This is the point that Houston wanted the court to address.
Houston got Canada to admit the only students he would bar would be of African descent. Hogsett, on the other hand, was unable to unnerve young Mr. Gaines with speculation that the NAACP had put him up to applying at MU. Gaines replied,” No, that is my idea; about the [law] suit.”
-
2.4 Judge W. M. Dinwiddie Boone County, Missouri, 13th Circuit Court
Two weeks later, Judge Dinwiddie issued his decision in favor of Canada and the University. Houston was expecting this and appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.
-
2.5 Missouri State Supreme Court Building, Jefferson City, Missouri
On December 12, 1936, Charles Hamilton Houston was in Jefferson City, Missouri arguing Gaines’ appeal in front of the Missouri Supreme Court. Houston added some teeth to his argument by adding that neither “the slender hope” that Gaines may someday attend a new law program at Lincoln nor the provision of tuition scholarships to attend an out-of-state law school met the US Constitution’s requirement of equal treatment regardless of race.
-
2.6 Judge William F. Frank, Chief Justice, Missouri State Supreme Court
In February, 1937, the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice William F. Frank, issued their verdict that supported the Missouri statute that allowed for out-of-state tuition for Missouri blacks to continue their education if the desired program was not offered at Lincoln University Once again, the legal team of Lloyd Gaines was not undaunted.
-
3.1 Lloyd Gaines sitting in a chair
While Lloyd Gaines, who was now enrolled at the University of Michigan, worked on a Masters degree in Economics, Houston, Redmond and Espy planned their next step. The decisions in Missouri were not made on a level playing field, so to speak. They needed to take their case to place where justice was blind and unbiased; the Supreme Court of the United States.
-
3.3 Charlie Houston Letter to Walter on May 24, 1938
Although Lloyd Gaines’ battle against the University of Missouri, and ultimately the Jim Crow laws emanating from Plessy v Ferguson, was, on the surface, not faring too well, Charles Hamilton Houston, however, was pleased.
-
3.4 United States Supreme Court 1938
Gaines’ legal team, led by Houston, had faith in the justice system of the United States and anticipated getting a fair trial at the federal level. So far, all decisions had occurred in Missouri, a state with a segregated system.The fact that Gaines v Canada had reached the Supreme Court was promising indeed. It was rare that any case involving African-Americans would be considered by the highest court in the land. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been appointing Justices that were more willing to consider cases concerned with civil rights.
On November 9, 1938, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the Gaines v Canada case. The defense was unmoved by the rude treatment and made their presentation with professionalism and aplomb. Houston’s argument remained steadfast; not only was the state of Missouri’s statute concerning out-of-state tuition for blacks in violation of the 14th Amendment, but the very idea of segregation itself violated the Constitution.
William Hogsett, the attorney for the University of Missouri, countered that the school was merely following state laws. The MU legal team was flustered as questions from the bench forced them to correct overstatements regarding Missouri’s “generosity to Negro students”. With crossed fingers and high hopes, the Gaines legal team rested their case and awaited the verdict.
Meanwhile, Lloyd Gaines was still in Michigan. Lloyd held a W.P.A. job as a Civil Service Clerk and was in constant contact with his family and attorneys. His mood in his correspondence was hopeful and positive.
-
3.5 Supreme Court Justice James P. McReynolds
However, there was an obstacle on the court, namely James Clark McReynolds, an avowed racist. In fact, during the hearing, McReynolds turned his chair around and faced the wall when Houston presented his argument.
-
3.7 Chief Justice Hughes Delivered the Opinion of the Court for Gaines vs. Canada Case
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes announced the 6-2 decision on Gaines v Canada on December 12, 1938. Writing for the majority, Hughes held that when the state provides legal training, it must provide it to every qualified person; it cannot send them to other states. Key to the conclusion was that there was no provision for legal education of blacks in Missouri, which is where Missouri law guaranteeing equal protection applies. To the court, sending Gaines to another state would have been irrelevant.
