Boynton v. Virginia
The Court overturned the trespassing conviction of an African American law student who sat in a "whites only" bus terminal restaurant, holding that racial segregation in public transportation violated the Interstate Commerce Act.· AI-written
364 U.S. 454 · No. 7 · 1960 term · Warren Court
Decided Dec 5, 1960 · argued Oct 12, 1960
Civil rights · Sit-in demonstrations
Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity
Majority opinion: Hugo Black
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Reversed and remanded. Boynton won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Boynton was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 (1960), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. The case overturned a judgment convicting an African American law student for trespassing by being in a restaurant in a bus terminal which was "whites only". It held that racial segregation in public transportation was illegal because such segregation violated the Interstate Commerce Act, which broadly forbade discrimination in interstate passenger transportation. It moreover held that bus transportation was sufficiently related to interstate commerce to allow the United States federal government to regulate it to forbid racial discrimination in the industry.
Thurgood Marshall argued the case for Boynton. The majority opinion was written by Justice Hugo Black.
The significance of Boynton was not located in its holding since it managed to avoid deciding any Constitutional questions in its decision, and its expansive reading of Federal powers regarding interstate commerce was also well established by the time of the decision. Its significance is that its outlawing of racial segregation in public transportation led directly to a movement called the Freedom Rides, in which African Americans and whites together rode various forms of public transportation in the South to challenge local laws or customs that enforced segregation. The Freedom Rides, and the violent reactions they provoked, prompted Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to confront the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) with its failure to enforce a bus desegregation ruling it had handed down in 1955, Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company, 64 MCC 769 (1955) as well as the companion train desegregation case, NAACP v. St. Louis-Santa Fe Railway Company, 297 ICC 335 (1955). By presenting the commission with its own rulings in a May 29, 1961, petition, Kennedy was able to prompt it to do what it had promised in 1955, five years before the Boynton ruling was handed down, and six years before the Freedom Riders set out to test Boynton across the Deep South. On September 22, 1961, the ICC issued regulations which implemented its 1955 Keys and NAACP rulings, as well as the Supreme Court's ruling in Boynton, and on November 1 those regulations went into effect, effectively ending Jim Crow in public transportation.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1960 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Hugo BlackWrote the majority opinion
William DouglasJoined the majority
Earl WarrenJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Felix FrankfurterJoined the majority
John HarlanJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Charles WhittakerWrote a dissent
Tom ClarkJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- BoyntonPerson or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination
- Respondent
- VirginiaState (Virginia)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Interstate Commerce, as amended
- Kind of law
- Federal Statute
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Dec 5, 1960DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: reversed and remanded. Boynton won.
- Oct 12, 1960ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Virginia Supreme Court: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Virginia trial court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
16 other argued cases since 1946 on sit-in demonstrations, newest first.
- Brown et al. v. Louisiana383 U.S. 131Feb 23, 1966 · 383 U.S. 131Civil rights5–45–4 band
- McKinnie et al. v. Tennessee380 U.S. 449Apr 5, 1965 · 380 U.S. 449Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Abernathy et al. v. Alabama.380 U.S. 447Apr 5, 1965 · 380 U.S. 447Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
- Hamm v. City of Rock Hill379 U.S. 306Dec 14, 1964 · 379 U.S. 306Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Bouie et al. v. City of Columbia378 U.S. 347Jun 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 347Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Bell et al. v. Maryland378 U.S. 226Jun 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 226Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Robinson et al. v. Florida378 U.S. 153Jun 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 153Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Barr et al. v. City of Columbia378 U.S. 146Jun 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 146Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Griffin et al. v. Maryland378 U.S. 130Jun 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 130Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Avent et al. v. North Carolina.373 U.S. 375May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 375Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Gober et al. v. City of Birmingham373 U.S. 374May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 374Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Wright et al. v. Georgia373 U.S. 284May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 284Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Lombard et al. v. Louisiana373 U.S. 267May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 267Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Shuttlesworth et al. v. City of Birmingham373 U.S. 262May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 262Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Peterson et al. v. City of Greenville373 U.S. 244May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 244Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Garner et al. v. LouisianaLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity368 U.S. 157Dec 11, 1961 · 368 U.S. 157Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.