agree with respondents that the doctrine of Plessy v Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896), requires affirmance of the judgment below. Nor need we reach petitioner's contetion that Plessy v. Ferguson should be reexamined in the light of contemporary knowledge respecting the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment and the effects of raci segregation. See supra, p. 631.

We hold that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that petitioner be admitte: to the University of Texas Law School. The judgme is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceeding not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversi

ICLAURIN v. OKLAHOMA STATE REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION ET AL.

PPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA.

No. 34. Argued April 3-4, 1950.-Decided June 5, 1950.

ppellant, a Negro citizen of Oklahoma possessing a master's degree, was admitted to the Graduate School of the state-supported University of Oklahoma as a candidate for a doctorate in education and was permitted to use the same classroom, library and cafeteria as white students. Pursuant to a requirement of state law that the instruction of Negroes in institutions of higher education be "upon a segregated basis," however, he was assigned to a seat in the classroom in a row specified for Negro students, was assigned to a special table in the library, and, although permitted to eat in the cafeteria at the same time as other students, was assigned to a special table there. Held: The conditions under which appellant is required to receive his education deprive him of his personal and present right to the equal protection of the laws; and the Fourteenth Amendment precludes such differences in treatment by the State based upon race. Pp. 638-642.

(a) The restrictions imposed upon appellant impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession. Pp. 640-641.

(b) That appellant may still be set apart by his fellow students and may be in no better position when these restrictions are removed is irrelevant, for there is a constitutional difference between restrictions imposed by the State which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students and the refusal of students to commingle where the State presents no such bar. P. 641.

(c) Having been admitted to a state-supported graduate school, appellant must receive the same treatment at the hands of the State as students of other races. P. 642.

7 F. Supp. 528, reversed.

The proceedings below are stated in the opinion. The udgment below is reversed, p. 642.

Robert L. Carter and Amos T. Hall argued the cause or appellant. With them on the brief were Thurgood

Marshall and Frank D. Reeves. Marian W. Perry and Franklin H. Williams were also of counsel.

Fred Hansen, First Assistant Attorney General of Okl homa, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General.

Briefs of amici curiae, supporting appellant, were filed by Solicitor General Perlman and Philip Elman for the United States; Paul G. Annes for the American Federstion of Teachers; Phineas Indritz for the American Veterans Committee, Inc.; Arthur J. Goldberg for the Cogress of Industrial Organizations; Edward J. Ennis and Saburo Kido for the Japanese American Citizens League: and Arthur Garfield Hays and Eugene Nickerson for the American Civil Liberties Union.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, we are faced with the question whether & state may, after admitting a student to graduate instruc tion in its state university, afford him different treatmen: from other students solely because of his race. We de cide only this issue; see Sweatt v. Painter, ante, p. 629.

Appellant is a Negro citizen of Oklahoma. Possessing a Master's Degree, he applied for admission to the Unversity of Oklahoma in order to pursue studies and courses leading to a Doctorate in Education. At that time, his application was denied, solely because of his race. The school authorities were required to exclude him by the Oklahoma statutes, 70 Okla. Stat. (1941) §§ 455, 456,457 which made it a misdemeanor to maintain or operate. teach or attend a school at which both whites and Negroes are enrolled or taught. Appellant filed a complaint requesting injunctive relief, alleging that the action of the school authorities and the statutes upon which their action was based were unconstitutional and deprived him

the equal protection of the laws. Citing our decisions Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337 (1938), d Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631 (1948), statutory three-judge District Court held that the ate had a Constitutional duty to provide him with the ucation he sought as soon as it provided that education r applicants of any other group. It further held that the extent the Oklahoma statutes denied him admison they were unconstitutional and void. On the asmption, however, that the State would follow the conitutional mandate, the court refused to grant the junction, retaining jurisdiction of the cause with full ower to issue any necessary and proper orders to secure IcLaurin the equal protection of the laws. 87 F. Supp. 26.

Following this decision, the Oklahoma legislature mended these statutes to permit the admission of Neoes to institutions of higher learning attended by white udents, in cases where such institutions offered courses ot available in the Negro schools. The amendment rovided, however, that in such cases the program of struction "shall be given at such colleges or institutions f higher education upon a segregated basis." 1 Appel

1 The amendment adds the following proviso to each of the secons relating to mixed schools: "Provided, that the provisions of is Section shall not apply to programs of instruction leading to a articular degree given at State owned or operated colleges or instiations of higher education of this State established for and/or used y the white race, where such prograr of instruction leading to a articular degree are not given at colleges or institutions of higher ducation of this State established for and/or used by the colored ace; provided further, that said programs of instruction leading to particular degree shall be given at such colleges or institutions of gher education upon a segregated basis." 70 Okla. Stat. Ann. 1950) §§ 455, 456, 457. Segregated basis is defined as "classroom nstruction given in separate classrooms, or at separate times " Id. 455.

lant was thereupon admitted to the University of Okla homa Graduate School. In apparent conformity with the amendment, his admission was made subject to “such rules and regulations as to segregation as the Preside:: of the University shall consider to afford to Mr. G. W. McLaurin substantially equal educational opportunities as are afforded to other persons seeking the same education in the Graduate College," a condition which does not appear to have been withdrawn. Thus he was required to sit apart at a designated desk in an anteroom adjoining the classroom; to sit at a designated desk on the mezza nine floor of the library, but not to use the desks in the regular reading room; and to sit at a designated table and to eat at a different time from the other students the school cafeteria.

To remove these conditions, appellant filed a motion to modify the order and judgment of the District Court That court held that such treatment did not violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and denied the motion. 87 F. Supp. 528. This appeal followed.

. In the interval between the decision of the court below and the hearing in this Court, the treatment afforded appellant was altered. For some time, the section of the classroom in which appellant sat was surrounded by a rail on which there was a sign stating, "Reserved For Colored," but these have been removed. He is now assigned to a seat in the classroom in a row specifie for colored students; he is assigned to a table in the library on the main for; and he is permitted to ea: at the same time in the cafeteria as other students although here again he is assigned to a special table.

It is said that the separations imposed by the State in this case are in form merely nominal. McLaur uses the same classroom, library and cafeteria as students of other races; there is no indication that the seats :: which he is assigned in these rooms have any disadvantage