Palmer v. Thompson

Week 12 — Discriminatory Purpose

Facts

  • Rather than desegregate its public swimming pools, Jackson, Mississippi, simply closed them entirely.
  • Black citizens filed suit attempting to force the city to operate desegregated public pools.
  • It was undisputed that the closure decision was motivated by racial animus.

Issue

Whether a state action motivated by racial animus violates the Equal Protection Clause where the action has no discriminatory impact—i.e., where it equally burdens all races.

Holding

No. Absent discriminatory impact, the EPC was not violated.

Reasoning

  • There is no constitutional requirement for municipalities to operate swimming pools.
  • The closure equally impacted all races—no one got a pool.
  • Even if a government action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose, it does not violate the EPC of the 14A if it does not also have a discriminatory impact (very rare scenario).
  • This was not explicitly addressed in Palmer, but it was essentially implied.

Notes

  • Distinguishing Palmer from Loving v. Virginia: Both involved government action motivated by racial animus that technically affected all races the same. The difference was that the statute in Loving was facially discriminatory, whereas there was no facially discriminatory statute or action in Palmer.
  • There was also a standing/injury issue in Palmer: neither side suffered a legally cognizable injury because everyone was denied public pools.
  • Illustrates the rare case where only discriminatory purpose is proven.