Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

390 U.S. 333

Lee v. Washington

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Nov. 7, 1967.

Decided March 11, 1968.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1968-03-11

Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968), is a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld an appeals court decision to forbid segregation of public prisons.

Source: Wikipedia ↗

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[P]rison authorities have the right, acting in good faith and in particularized circumstances, to take into account racial tensions in maintaining security, discipline, and good order in prisons and jails.”

quoted by 6 later decisions, including Johnson v. California, 593 F. Supp. 245 - Blevins v. Brew

“`the necessities of prison security and discipline.'”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including Hudson v. Palmer, Jones v. Diamond

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 9–0 · Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1968-03-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 760 later decisions (58 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), Bell v. Wolfish (1979)

252 federal appellate · 53 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 18 states

35301968197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Nicholas S. Hare, for appellants.

Charles Morgan, Jr., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This appeal challenges a decree of a three-judge District Court declaring that certain Alabama statutes violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they require segregation of the races in prisons and jails, and establishing a schedule for desegregation of these institutions. The State's contentions that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which relates to class actions, was violated in this case and that the challenged statutes are not unconstitutional are without merit. The remaining contention of the State is that the specific orders directing desegregation of prisons and jails make no allowance for the necessities of prison security and discipline, but we do not so read the 'Order, Judgment and Decree' of the District Court, which when read as a whole we find unexceptionable.

¶2

The judgment is affirmed.

¶3

Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice HARLAN, and Mr. Justice STEWART, concurring.

¶4

In joining the opinion of the Court, we wish to make explicit something that is left to be gathered only by implication from the Court's opinions. This is that prison authorities have the right, acting in good faith and in particularized circumstances, to take into account racial tensions in maintaining security, discipline, and good order in prisons and jails. We are unwilling to assume that state or local prison authorities might mistakenly regard such an explicit pronouncement as evincing any dilution of this Court's firm commitment to the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition of racial discrimination.

/390/us/333 · .json · Public domain