InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Robinson et al. v. Florida

The Court reversed the convictions of white and African American people refused restaurant service, holding that a Florida rule requiring separate lavatories for restaurants serving both races entangled the state in discrimination, violating the Equal Protection Clause.· AI-written

378 U.S. 153 · No. 60 · 1963 term · Warren Court

Decided Jun 22, 1964 · argued Oct 15, 1963

Civil rights · Sit-in demonstrations

Majority opinion: Hugo Black

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

Reversed and remanded. Robinson et al. won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Florida Supreme Court and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Robinson et al. 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.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Robinson v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the convictions of several white and African American persons who were refused service at a restaurant based upon a prior Court decision, holding that a Florida regulation requiring a restaurant that employed or served persons of both races to have separate lavatory rooms resulted in the state becoming entangled in racial discriminatory activity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

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.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1963 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianDouglasBlackWarrenGoldbergBrennanWhiteClarkStewartHarlan

Majority(9)

Dissent(0)

  • None.
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.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Robinson et al.Person or organization protesting racial or ethnic segregation or discrimination
Respondent
FloridaState (Florida)
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required 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.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
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.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jun 22, 1964DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Robinson et al. won.
  2. Oct 15, 1963ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the Florida Supreme Court: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Florida 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.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

16 other argued cases since 1946 on sit-in demonstrations, newest first.

  1. Brown et al. v. Louisiana383 U.S. 131Feb 23, 1966 · 383 U.S. 131Civil rights5–45–4 band

  2. McKinnie et al. v. Tennessee380 U.S. 449Apr 5, 1965 · 380 U.S. 449Civil rights5–45–4 band
  3. Abernathy et al. v. Alabama.380 U.S. 447Apr 5, 1965 · 380 U.S. 447Civil rights7–0Unanimous band
  4. Hamm v. City of Rock Hill379 U.S. 306Dec 14, 1964 · 379 U.S. 306Civil rights5–45–4 band
  5. Bouie et al. v. City of Columbia378 U.S. 347Jun 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 347Civil rights6–36–3 band

  6. Bell et al. v. Maryland378 U.S. 226Jun 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 226Civil rights6–36–3 band

  7. Barr et al. v. City of Columbia378 U.S. 146Jun 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 146Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  8. Griffin et al. v. Maryland378 U.S. 130Jun 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 130Civil rights6–36–3 band

  9. Avent et al. v. North Carolina.373 U.S. 375May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 375Civil rights8–18–1 band
  10. Gober et al. v. City of Birmingham373 U.S. 374May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 374Civil rights8–18–1 band
  11. Wright et al. v. Georgia373 U.S. 284May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 284Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  12. Lombard et al. v. Louisiana373 U.S. 267May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 267Civil rights8–18–1 band
  13. Shuttlesworth et al. v. City of Birmingham373 U.S. 262May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 262Civil rights8–18–1 band
  14. Peterson et al. v. City of Greenville373 U.S. 244May 20, 1963 · 373 U.S. 244Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  15. Garner et al. v. LouisianaLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity368 U.S. 157Dec 11, 1961 · 368 U.S. 157Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  16. Boynton v. VirginiaLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity364 U.S. 454Dec 5, 1960 · 364 U.S. 454Civil rights7–27–2 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.

Report a correction

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.