# McKinney v. Blankenship

> Texas Supreme Court · October 12, 1955 · 154 Tex. 632

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774950

## Case

- **Full name:** R. E. McKinney Et Al v. W. C. Blankenship Et Al
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 12, 1955
- **Citations:** 154 Tex. 632; 282 S.W.2d 691; 1955 Tex. LEXIS 556
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Walker
- **Judges:** Brewster, Griffin, Walker
- **Cited by:** 78 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774950

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding local school board members were proper defendants in action concerning validity of state statute allocating or expending state school funds but that State Commissioner of Education and State Comptroller were not proper parties because their certification and transmitta…
- rejecting argument that Texas courts could ignore Brown v. Board of Education since Texas's segregation laws "were not before the Supreme Court" in that case as "so utterly without merit that we overrule it without further discussion"
- recognizing the overruling of Texas constitutional and statutory provisions by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
- holding local school officials were proper defendants in action concerning validity of state statute

## Opinion text

Mb. Justice Griffin joined by Justice Walker,
concurring.
I concur in the result which has been reached by the majority and agree with the majority opinion except as to the construction of the provisions of Art. 2922-13. If an act of the Legislature can be given any reasonable construction which will permit the law to be sustained as constitutional and valid, that construction should be adopted. But we should not adopt a strained and unreasonable construction simply to enable us to say that the act is constitutional.
It is my opinion that the language “such allotments (whether of funds or teachers) based upon white attendance shall be utilized in white schools, and allotments based upon negro attendance in negro schools” is mandatory and exclusionary. I can think of no stronger language than “shall be utilized.” It requires in no uncertain terms that the allotments or teachers be used in either negro schools or white schools, and there is nothing in the act authorizing the school authorities to use them in integrated schools.
To hold this second sentence valid would in this case give force and effect to a law requiring separate schools for whites and negroes. The object of this particular suit is to enjoin the use of Foundation School funds in schools which have been integrated by the local school board. The result of the injunction, if granted, would be the abandonment of the limited desegregation policy thus voluntarily adopted by the local school authorities, unless the trustees should choose the unlikely alternative of operating without Foundation School funds. It is my opinion, therefore, that under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Brown case, the quoted provisions of Art. 2922-13 are unconstitutional when applied to the facts of this case.
In view of all the provisions of the Foundation School Pro *644 gram Act, and particularly the purpose and severability sections, and the primary purpose which motivated the Legislature to enact the statute, it is also my opinion that the quoted provision is severable and that its unconstitutionality when applied to a case of this character does not affect or impair the validity and operation of the remainder of the statute.
All the reasoning of the majority opinion as to equal and impartial support of the public schools for both races would apply; the Foundation School Program Act will be fully and completely effective to provide support for schools that are legally segregated under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in the Brown case, and for schools which have been integrated by local school boards using their best judgment and discretion (as has been done in this case), and for support of either or both.
Opinion delivered October 12, 1955.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774950. Public record. Not legal advice.