In Bailey v. Patterson, decided in 1962, the Supreme Court held that no state may require racial segregation in transportation facilities, whether the travel crosses state lines or stays within a single state. The Court treated the constitutional question as already settled by earlier decisions and sent the case back to the lower courts to be resolved quickly on that basis.1Supreme Court of the United States. Bailey v. Patterson
What the Case Challenged
Samuel Bailey and other Black residents of Jackson, Mississippi, sued on behalf of themselves and others to stop the state from enforcing segregated travel. Mississippi statutes required transportation companies to keep passengers separated by race in terminal facilities, including waiting rooms and restrooms. Section 2351.5 of the Mississippi Code, for example, required carriers to provide separate restrooms. The City of Jackson posted signs directing travelers to the segregated areas, and officers removed Black passengers from certain waiting rooms, using breach-of-peace or trespass laws to justify the arrests.2Justia. Bailey v. Patterson, 318 F.2d 1
The Holding on Segregated Travel
The Supreme Court ruled that state-enforced segregation in transportation facilities is unconstitutional, and the rule applies equally to interstate and intrastate travel. The justices found the point no longer open for debate given prior rulings on the subject. That framing did more than resolve this dispute: it foreclosed state laws that maintained racial separation for passengers as a category, not just the specific provisions Mississippi had on the books. The Court remanded the case so the plaintiffs’ claims could be dealt with expeditiously under the settled rule.1Supreme Court of the United States. Bailey v. Patterson
Why a Single Judge Could Decide It
The case is also cited for a procedural rule. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2281, a three-judge panel was ordinarily required to hear a suit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a state statute on constitutional grounds.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2281 The Supreme Court held that a three-judge panel is not needed when the constitutional question is so clearly settled that it is no longer open for debate. A single federal judge had authority to rule here, and there was no reason to wait for state courts to interpret laws that were already invalid under the federal constitution.1Supreme Court of the United States. Bailey v. Patterson
What the Court Did Not Decide
The plaintiffs also tried to challenge Mississippi’s breach-of-peace statutes, the laws used to justify arrests at terminals. The Court held they lacked standing to attack those criminal statutes because none of them had been arrested or threatened with prosecution under them. A plaintiff generally must show a personal stake in the outcome, and without that showing the civil suit could not reach the criminal provisions. The desegregation holding stood; the criminal statutes were left for another case with a properly situated plaintiff.1Supreme Court of the United States. Bailey v. Patterson