§410iiii–1 — Title 16 Conservation | U.S. Code

Summary

Recognizes the 1954 Supreme Court ruling that threw out the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson idea of separate schools and ended legal school segregation. It notes that Oliver Brown and 12 other plaintiffs challenged an 1879 Kansas law after Linda Brown was denied entry to an all‑White school, and that five related cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia were combined into Brown v. Board of Education. A 1999 study found each of those cases to be nationally important. The law also records that several of the school buildings involved have been declared historic sites and are now museums, community centers, active schools, administrative offices, or, in one case, vacant (Monroe Elementary closed in 1975). Requires preserving, protecting, and explaining the places tied to the Brown decision for today’s and future generations. It also requires telling how Brown fit into the civil rights movement and helping preserve related sites in Topeka (KS), Summerton (SC), Farmville (VA), Wilmington/Claymont/Hockessin (DE), and the District of Columbia.

Title 16, §410iiii–1

Conservation — Source: USLM XML via OLRC

(a)The Congress finds as follows:

(1)The Supreme Court, in 1954, ruled that the earlier 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that permitted segregation of races in elementary schools violated the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law.

(2)In the 1954 proceedings, Oliver Brown and twelve other plaintiffs successfully challenged an 1879 Kansas law that had been patterned after the law in question in Plessy v. Ferguson after the Topeka, Kansas, Board of Education refused to enroll Mr. Brown’s daughter, Linda.

(3)The Brown case was joined by 4 other cases relating to school segregation pending before the Supreme Court (Briggs v. Elliott, filed in South Carolina, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, filed in Virginia, Gebhart v. Belton, filed in Delaware, and Bolling v. Sharpe, filed in the District of Columbia) that were consolidated into the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

(4)A 1999 historic resources study examined the 5 cases included in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and found that each case—

(A)is nationally significant; and

(B)contributes unique stories to the case for educational equity.

(5)Sumner Elementary, the all-white school that refused to enroll Linda Brown, and Monroe Elementary, the segregated school she was forced to attend, have subsequently been designated National Historic Landmarks in recognition of their national significance.

(6)Sumner Elementary, an active school, is administered by the Topeka Board of Education; Monroe Elementary, closed in 1975 due to declining enrollment, is privately owned and stands vacant.

(7)With respect to the case of Briggs v. Elliott—

(A)Summerton High School in Summerton, South Carolina, the all-White school that refused to admit the plaintiffs in the case—

(i)has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the national significance of the school; and

(ii)is used as administrative offices for Clarendon School District 1; and

(B)the former Scott’s Branch High School, an “equalization school” in Summerton, South Carolina constructed for African-American students in 1951 to provide facilities comparable to those of White students, is now the Community Resource Center owned by Clarendon School District 1.

(8)Robert Russa Moton High School, the all-Black school in Farmville, Virginia, which was the location of a student-led strike leading to Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County—

(A)has been designated as a National Historic Landmark in recognition of the national significance of the school; and

(B)is now the Robert Russa Moton Museum, which is administered by the Moton Museum, Inc., and affiliated with Longwood University.

(9)With respect to the case of Belton v. Gebhart—

(A)Howard High School in Wilmington, Delaware, an all-Black school to which the plaintiffs in the case were forced to travel—

(i)has been designated as a National Historic Landmark in recognition of the national significance of the school; and

(ii)is now the Howard High School of Technology, an active school administered by the New Castle County Vocational-Technical School District;

(B)the all-White Claymont High School, which denied admission to the plaintiffs, is now the Claymont Community Center administered by the Brandywine Community Resource Council, Inc.; and

(C)the Hockessin School #107C (Hockessin Colored School)—

(i)is the all-Black school in Hockessin, Delaware, that 1 of the plaintiffs in the case was required to attend with no public transportation provided; and

(ii)is now used as a community facility by Friends of Hockessin Colored School #107, Inc.

(10)John Philip Sousa Junior High School in the District of Columbia, the all-White school that refused to admit plaintiffs in Bolling v. Sharpe—

(A)has been designated as a National Historic Landmark in recognition of the national significance of the school;

(B)is now known as the “John Philip Sousa Middle School”; and

(C)is owned by the District of Columbia Department of General Services and administered by the District of Columbia Public Schools.

(b)The purposes of this subchapter are—

(1)to preserve, protect, and interpret for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations, the places that contributed materially to the landmark United States Supreme Court decision that brought an end to segregation in public education; and 11 So in original. The word “and” probably should not appear.

(2)to interpret the integral role of the Brown v. Board of Education case in the civil rights movement.22 So in original. The period probably should be “; and”.

(3)to assist in the preservation, protection, and interpretation of related resources within Topeka, Kansas, Summerton, South Carolina, Farmville, Virginia, Wilmington, Claymont, and Hockessin, Delaware, and the District of Columbia that further the understanding of the civil rights movement and the context of Brown v. Board of Education.

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Editorial Notes

Amendments

2022—Subsec. (a)(3) to (10). Pub. L. 117–123, § 3(c), added pars. (3), (4), and (7) to (10) and redesignated former pars. (3) and (4) as (5) and (6), respectively. Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 117–123, § 3(d), inserted “, protection,” after “preservation” and “and the context of Brown v. Board of Education” after “civil rights movement” and substituted “Topeka, Kansas, Summerton, South Carolina, Farmville, Virginia, Wilmington, Claymont, and Hockessin, Delaware, and the District of Columbia” for “the city of Topeka”.

§410iiii–1 Findings and purposes

Summary

Title 16, §410iiii–1

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Editorial Notes

Amendments

Citations & Metadata