Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715

Supreme Court of the United States

1961

Chapter

9

Title

State Action, Baselines, and the Problem of Private Power

Page

1561

Topic

Judicial Action and the Theory of Government Neutrality

Quick Notes

A restaurant, which had leased its business space from a state agency and was operating inside of a state owned and operated parking ramp, refused to serve a customer because he was an African American .

Rule

o         When a state becomes so entangled in a private party's actions that the state may be considered a joint participant in the actions of the private party, then the private party's racially discriminatory actions are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

o         If a state is significantly involved with a private enterprise, then, depending on the facts and circumstances, discriminatory action by the private actor may be considered state action that violates the fourteenth amendment

Court - Holding

o         Public funds paid for the upkeep and repairs of the leased space.

o         The restaurant benefited from respondent's tax exempt status for building improvements.

o         The U.S. Supreme Court held there was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, when the restaurant refused to serve an individual based on his race on the theory that it was a purely private action.

o         The Court held that, given these facts, and the ultimate conclusion that the restaurant was an integral part of a public building, there was sufficient state participation and involvement to constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Book Name

Constitutional Law : Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet.  ISBN:  978-0-7355-7719-0

Issue

o         Whether a State-Lessor is in violation of the 14th amendment, when its lessee acts RACIALLY discriminatory?  Yes.

Procedure

Delaware

o         Supreme Court of Delaware that held that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, when appellee restaurant, which was located in a public parking garage, refused to serve him based on his race because the operation of the restaurant did not involve state action.

Supreme

o         Reversed and remanded.

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules/Laws

Pl -   Burton

Df -   Wilmington Parking Authority

Description

o         The Eagle Coffee Shoppe, Inc. is a restaurant located within a parking ramp owned and operated by the Wilmington Parking Authority.

o         The Authority is an agency of the

o         State of Delaware.

o         Eagle leases the restaurant space from the Authority.

o         The written lease between Eagle and the Authority is silent as to discriminatory treatment of restaurant patrons. 

o         Eagle refused to serve Burton food or drink solely because he is an African American.

o         The Delaware Supreme Court found that there was no state action because Eagle was a private actor.

o         It also determined that Eagle was not required to serve Burton under 24 Del. Code § 1501 -- providing that restaurants are not required to serve a customer whose presence would be offensive to other customers and would thereby hurt business.

Justice Clark

o         Eagle's exclusion of Burton was discriminatory state action.

Wilmington Parking Authority (Utilized Public Parking)

o         The Authority was created to provide adequate public parking.

o         In order to secure adequate capital to build and operate the parking ramp where Eagle is located, the Authority had to enter into long-term commercial leases for some of the space in the parking ramp. 

o         The building has signs indicating that it is a public building, and the state and national flags fly from the roof.

Equal Protection violation = [Abridging individual rights AND State Involvement]

o         We begin with the well-known principle that private conduct abridging individual rights does no violence to equal protection unless to some significant extent the State has somehow become involved. 

No prcised rule as to when a State would be in violation

o         This Court has not fashioned a precise rule as to when government involvement in private action is sufficient to change the character of the action into state action.

o         Only by sifting facts and weighing circumstances can the non-obvious involvement of the State in private conduct be attributed its true significance.

Delaware Supreme Court

o         The Delaware Supreme Court seems to have considered facts which, if taken alone, indicate that the building is more private than public and that there is no obvious connection between building was owned publicly, used publicly, and financed publicly.

o         The commercially leased areas of the parking ramp were indispensable for it to operate as a self-sufficient unit.

Eagles Alleges - There business will be injured

o         This Court cannot ignore Eagle's affirmative allegation that serving African Americans would injure its business; the profits earned by discrimination not only contribute to, but are indispensable elements in, the financial success of a government agency.

Court - Eagle requires part of a public building and public parking

o         The restaurant is operated as an integral part of a public building devoted to public parking.

o         Considering all of the above facts and the situation as a whole, we must conclude that the Authority has become a joint participant in Eagle's racial discrimination.

o         Thus, Eagle's refusal to serve African Americans is not so purely private as to fall outside the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment.

o         We do not from the facts of this case declare a universal truth upon which every state leasing agreement should be tested.

o         Due to the "largeness" of government, there will be many and varied agreements between the government and private parties.

o         However, each case must be determined within the framework of its peculiar facts and circumstances.

Reversed and remanded.

Rules

Rule

o         When a state becomes so entangled in a private party's actions that the state may be considered a joint participant in the actions of the private party, then the private party's racially discriminatory actions are a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Rule

o         If a state is significantly involved with a private enterprise, then, depending on the facts and circumstances, discriminatory action by the private actor may be considered state action that violates the fourteenth amendment

14th Amend. Section 1.

o    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

o    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Due Process

o    nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Equal Protection

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Class Notes