Justice William O. Douglas wrote: “In the original conference there were only four who voted that segregation in the public schools was unconstitutional. Those four were Black, Burton, Minton, and myself.”Bernard Schwartz. Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases, 頁 96. (Oxford 1996). [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2020-10-30） （英语）.; Likewise, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: “I have no doubt that if the segregation cases had reached decision last term, there would have been four dissenters — Vinson, Reed, Jackson, and Clark.” Id. Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary had a different view, calling Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to "smear the reputation of a great justice." See Alan Dershowitz（英语：Alan Dershowitz） at Huffington Post. Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist. 2005-09-25 [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-03） （英语）. See also Felix Frankfurter on the death of Justice Vinson.
平等權的依據為美國憲法第十四修正案第一項：「任何人，凡在合眾國出生或歸化合眾國並受其管轄者，均為合眾國及所居住之州的公民。任何州不得制定或執行任何剝奪合眾國公民特權或豁免權的法律；任何州亦不得未經正當法律程序而剝奪任何人的生命、自由或財產；亦不得對任何在其管轄下的人，拒絕給予平等的法律保護。」其中的「不得對任何在其管轄下的人，拒絕給予平等的法律保護。」即為美國憲法的平等權條款（equal protection clause），保障公民在法律上被平等對待，這也就是美國憲法中平等權的規範由來。原文請參考LII/United States Constitution/Amendment XIV. [2008-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2009-11-24）.
Justice William O. Douglas wrote: “In the original conference there were only four who voted that segregation in the public schools was unconstitutional. Those four were Black, Burton, Minton, and myself.”Bernard Schwartz. Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases, 頁 96. (Oxford 1996). [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2020-10-30） （英语）.; Likewise, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: “I have no doubt that if the segregation cases had reached decision last term, there would have been four dissenters — Vinson, Reed, Jackson, and Clark.” Id. Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary had a different view, calling Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to "smear the reputation of a great justice." See Alan Dershowitz（英语：Alan Dershowitz） at Huffington Post. Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist. 2005-09-25 [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-03） （英语）. See also Felix Frankfurter on the death of Justice Vinson.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...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."
Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...In 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. 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. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout 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."
Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...Today, 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."
Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...In Sweatt v. Painter, 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, 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.’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:
'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.'"
Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...We 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."
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.497 (1954): "...Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause."
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.497 (1954): "...In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government."
Brown v. Board of Education, 349（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 349）U.S.294 (1955): "...Because these cases arose under different local conditions and their disposition will involve a variety of local problems, we requested further argument on the question of relief.FN2 In view of the nationwide importance of the decision, we invited the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorneys General of all states requiring or permitting racial discrimination in public education to present their views on that question. The parties, the United States, and the States of Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Texas filed briefs and participated in the oral argument."
Brown v. Board of Education, 349（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 349）U.S.294 (1955): "...To effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with the constitutional principles set forth in our May 17, 1954, decision."
平等權的依據為美國憲法第十四修正案第一項：「任何人，凡在合眾國出生或歸化合眾國並受其管轄者，均為合眾國及所居住之州的公民。任何州不得制定或執行任何剝奪合眾國公民特權或豁免權的法律；任何州亦不得未經正當法律程序而剝奪任何人的生命、自由或財產；亦不得對任何在其管轄下的人，拒絕給予平等的法律保護。」其中的「不得對任何在其管轄下的人，拒絕給予平等的法律保護。」即為美國憲法的平等權條款（equal protection clause），保障公民在法律上被平等對待，這也就是美國憲法中平等權的規範由來。原文請參考LII/United States Constitution/Amendment XIV. [2008-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2009-11-24）.
Justice William O. Douglas wrote: “In the original conference there were only four who voted that segregation in the public schools was unconstitutional. Those four were Black, Burton, Minton, and myself.”Bernard Schwartz. Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases, 頁 96. (Oxford 1996). [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2020-10-30） （英语）.; Likewise, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: “I have no doubt that if the segregation cases had reached decision last term, there would have been four dissenters — Vinson, Reed, Jackson, and Clark.” Id. Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary had a different view, calling Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to "smear the reputation of a great justice." See Alan Dershowitz（英语：Alan Dershowitz） at Huffington Post. Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist. 2005-09-25 [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-03） （英语）. See also Felix Frankfurter on the death of Justice Vinson.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...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."
Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...In 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. 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. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout 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."
Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...Today, 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."
Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...In Sweatt v. Painter, 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, 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.’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:
'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.'"
Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...We 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."
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.497 (1954): "...Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause."
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.497 (1954): "...In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government."
Brown v. Board of Education, 349（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 349）U.S.294 (1955): "...Because these cases arose under different local conditions and their disposition will involve a variety of local problems, we requested further argument on the question of relief.FN2 In view of the nationwide importance of the decision, we invited the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorneys General of all states requiring or permitting racial discrimination in public education to present their views on that question. The parties, the United States, and the States of Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Texas filed briefs and participated in the oral argument."
Brown v. Board of Education, 349（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 349）U.S.294 (1955): "...To effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with the constitutional principles set forth in our May 17, 1954, decision."
Justice William O. Douglas wrote: “In the original conference there were only four who voted that segregation in the public schools was unconstitutional. Those four were Black, Burton, Minton, and myself.”Bernard Schwartz. Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases, 頁 96. (Oxford 1996). [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2020-10-30） （英语）.; Likewise, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: “I have no doubt that if the segregation cases had reached decision last term, there would have been four dissenters — Vinson, Reed, Jackson, and Clark.” Id. Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary had a different view, calling Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to "smear the reputation of a great justice." See Alan Dershowitz（英语：Alan Dershowitz） at Huffington Post. Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist. 2005-09-25 [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-03） （英语）. See also Felix Frankfurter on the death of Justice Vinson.
