403 U.S. 217 (1971)
In 1962 Negro citizens of Jackson, Mississippi, brought a class action in the United States District Court against the city and its officials, including Mayor Allen C. Thompson and Parks Director George Kurts, challenging the city's maintenance of racially segregated public recreational facilities.1 At that time the city operated five swimming pools on a segregated basis, with four reserved for white use and one for Negro use, along with segregated parks, golf courses, auditoriums, and a zoo.2 The district court entered a declaratory judgment that enforced segregation denied equal protection of the laws but declined to issue an injunction; the Court of Appeals affirmed and this Court denied certiorari.3
Following the district court's judgment the city desegregated its public parks, auditoriums, golf courses, and zoo.4 The city council, however, surrendered its lease on one pool and closed the four pools it owned outright rather than operate any of them on an integrated basis, and no municipal swimming facilities have operated since that time.5
In 1965 Negro citizens filed the present class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the city to reopen and operate the pools on a desegregated basis.6 The district court, relying on affidavits from Mayor Thompson and Parks Director Kurts stating that the pools could not be operated safely, peacefully, or economically on an integrated basis, found the closings justified to preserve peace and order and dismissed the complaint.7
On appeal the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the dismissal by a vote of seven to six.8 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the equal protection claim arising from the pool closings.9
Whether the City of Jackson's closing of its public swimming pools rather than operating them on a desegregated basis denied Negro citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment?10
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids state action that denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.11 A municipality that closes a public facility rather than desegregating it does not violate the Clause when the closing affects all citizens equally, leaves no public facility available to one race while denying it to another, and involves no subterfuge by which the city continues to support segregated private facilities.12
No. The established facts show that after the 1962 declaratory judgment the city desegregated its parks, auditoriums, golf courses, and zoo yet surrendered its lease on one pool and closed the four it owned outright, so that no municipal swimming facilities have operated since that time.13 The district court found the closings justified to preserve peace and order on the basis of affidavits from Mayor Thompson and Parks Director Kurts.14 No evidence exists that the city is now covertly aiding the maintenance and operation of pools that are private in name only or that whites receive swimming facilities through other municipal means while Negroes are denied them.15 Because the action treats all citizens the same and the record contains no showing of differential racial impact through continued public support for segregated alternatives, the closing does not deny equal protection.16
The closing of the pools did not deny Negro citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.17
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Brennan And Marshall
Justice Douglas concluded that the city's action was impermissible state action that perpetuated the badge of slavery and denied equal protection.18 He reasoned that closing the pools was a direct response to the desegregation order.19 The action punished Negro citizens for asserting constitutional rights.20
The majority's reliance on fear of violence was misplaced.21 The Constitution does not permit a city to deny rights due to threats by private citizens.22 The state has a duty to protect those exercising rights rather than yield to the mob.23
Joined by Justices Brennan And Marshall
Justice White determined that the closing implemented an official policy that Negroes and whites must not mingle in city services.24 He emphasized that the desegregation ruling in Clark v. Thompson was the event that precipitated the decision.25 The officials' affidavits revealed that compliance with the mandate was deemed intolerable.26
The action expressed the view that Negroes are unfit to associate with whites.27 It imposed a stigma that falls disproportionately on the minority.28 The policy deters further efforts to vindicate rights.29
Joined by Justices Brennan And White
Justice Marshall stressed that rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are personal.30 Equal protection is not achieved by indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.31 He noted that public recreational facilities have received the same protection as schools since Brown.32
Allowing officials to pick and choose which facilities to keep open after losing a desegregation battle turns the clock back on constitutional guarantees.33 The city's selective closing after defeat in court undermines the personal rights secured by the Amendment.34
Justice Brennan concluded that the closing of the pools in response to the desegregation order violates the Equal Protection Clause.35 The city's action is clearly motivated by racial considerations.36 The pools were closed only because the city did not want to allow Negroes to use them on an integrated basis.37
This is invidious racial discrimination.38 The fact that the pools are closed to everyone does not make the action neutral.39 The impact falls disproportionately on the Negro community, which had been denied access to these facilities for years.40
The city's decision perpetuates the effects of past discrimination.41 Such official action violates the core command of the Equal Protection Clause.42
Whether the motivations of city officials for closing the pools may be examined to determine whether the action violated the Equal Protection Clause?43
No case in this Court has held that a legislative act may violate equal protection solely because of the motivations of the men who voted for it.44 Ascertaining the sole or dominant motivation behind a legislative choice is extremely difficult, and invalidating a law on that ground would be futile because the same law could be repassed for different reasons.45
No. The established facts indicate that the district court credited affidavits stating the pools could not be operated safely or economically on an integrated basis, while petitioners argued the decision was driven by opposition to integration.46 The record contains substantial evidence supporting both the safety-and-economy rationale and the claim of racial motivation.47 Yet the difficulty of isolating a single motive among legislators precludes judicial inquiry into motivation alone.48 Because the action is facially neutral and produces equal effects on all citizens, the motivations of city officials are not a proper basis for finding an equal-protection violation.49
The motivations of city officials may not be examined to invalidate the closing under the Equal Protection Clause.50
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Justice Burger joined the opinion of MR. JUSTICE BLACK.51 The elimination of any needed or useful public accommodation or service is surely undesirable and this is particularly so of public recreational facilities.52 Unfortunately the growing burdens and shrinking revenues of municipal and state governments may lead to more and more curtailment of desirable services.53
Inevitably every such constriction will affect some groups or segments of the community more than others.54 To find an equal protection issue in every closing of public swimming pools, tennis courts, or golf courses would distort beyond reason the meaning of that important constitutional guarantee.55 To hold that every public facility or service, once opened, constitutionally locks in the public sponsor so that it may not be dropped would plainly discourage the expansion and enlargement of needed services in the long run.56
We would do a grave disservice, both to elected officials and to the public, were we to require that every decision of local governments to terminate a desirable service be subjected to a microscopic scrutiny for forbidden motives rendering the decision unconstitutional.57
Justice Blackmun joined the majority.58 Cases such as this are hard cases for there is much to be said on each side.59 No other municipal recreational facility in the city of Jackson has been discontinued.60
The pools are not part of the city's educational system. They are a general municipal service of the nice-to-have but not essential variety, and they are a service, perhaps a luxury, not enjoyed by many communities.61 The pools had operated at a deficit.62
It was the judgment of the city officials that these deficits would increase.63 I cannot read into the closing of the pools an official expression of inferiority toward black citizens.64 The response of petitioners' counsel at oral argument whether the city was to be locked in with its pools for an indefinite time in the future was disturbing.65
On the record as presented to us in this case, I therefore vote to affirm.66
Whether the closing of the pools violated the Thirteenth Amendment?67
No. The established facts show only that the city once operated segregated pools and now maintains none.70 There is no evidence that the closing creates a badge of slavery.71 Congress has enacted no legislation regulating municipal decisions to open or close such facilities.72 Stretching the short words of the amendment to reach this local action would grant the Court a lawmaking power far beyond the imagination of its authors.73
The closing of the pools did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment.74