merce is for her benefit on a criminal trial for violation of the challenged statute. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 160; Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450, 463.

This Court frequently must determine the validity of state statutes that are attacked as unconstitutional interferences with the national power over interstate commerce. This appeal presents that question as to a statute that compels racial segregation of interstate passengers in vehicles moving interstate.12

The precise degree of a permissible restriction on state power cannot be fixed generally or indeed not even for one kind of state legislation, such as taxation or health or safety.13 There is a recognized abstract principle, however, that may be taken as a postulate for testing whether particular state legislation in the absence of action by Congress is beyond state power. This is that the state legislation is invalid if it unduly burdens that commerce in matters where uniformity is necessary-necessary in the constitutional sense of useful in accomplishing a permitted purpose." Where uniformity is essential for the functioning of commerce, a state may not interpose its local regulation. Too true it is that the principle lacks in precision. Although the quality of such a principle is abstract, its application to the facts of a situation created by the attempted enforcement of a statute brings about a specific determination as to whether or not the statute

15

12 When passing upon a rule of a carrier that required segregation. of an interstate passenger, this Court said, "And we must keep in mind that we are not dealing with the law of a State attempting a regulation of interstate commerce beyond its power to make." Chiles v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 218 U. S. 71, 75.

13 Cf. Gwin, White & Prince v. Henneford, 305 U. S. 434, 439; Mintz v. Baldwin, 289 U. S. 346, 352; Welch Co. v. New Hampshire, 306 U.S. 79, 84.

14 Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761, 766-71.

15 Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299, 319; Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U. S. 352, 402; Kelly v. Washington, 302 U. S. 1, 10.

in question is a burden on commerce.

Within the broad

limits of the principle, the cases turn on their own facts.

In the field of transportation, there has been a series of decisions which hold that where Congress has not acted and although the state statute affects interstate commerce, a state may validly enact legislation which has predominantly only a local influence on the course of commerce.18 It is equally well settled that, even where Con

16 Statutes or orders dealing with safety of operations: Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465 (Alabama statute requiring an examination and license of train engineers before operating in the state); Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96 (statute requiring examination of railroad employees as to vision and color blindness); New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. New York, 165 U. S. 628 (New York statute forbidding the use of furnaces or stoves in passenger cars and requiring guard-posts on railroad bridges); Erb v. Morasch, 177 U. S. 584 (municipal ordinance limiting speed of trains in city to 6 miles an hour); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280 (Georgia statute requiring electric headlights on locomotives); Morris v. Duby, 274 U. S. 135 (weight restrictions on motor carriers imposed by order of Oregon highway commission); Sproles v. Binford, 286 U. S. 374 (size and weight restrictions on trucks imposed by Texas statute); South Carolina Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U. S. 177 (statute restricting weight and size of motor carriers); Maurer v. Hamilton, 309 U.S. 598 (Pennsylvania statute forbidding the use of its highways to any vehicle carrying any other vehicle over the head of the operator of the vehicle); Terminal Assn. v. Trainmen, 318 U. S. 1 (Illinois statute requiring cabooses on freight trains).

Statutes or orders requiring local train service: Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U. S. 427 (state statute requiring intrastate train to stop at county seat to take on and discharge passengers); Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S. 285 (statute requiring three trains daily, if so many are run, to stop at each city containing over 3,000 inhabitants as applied to interstate trains); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corporation Comm'n. 206 U. S. 1 (order regulating train service, particularly requiring train to permit connection with through trains at junction point); Missouri Pacific R. Co.

agree with respondents th Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (18 judgment below. Nor need tion that Plessy v. Ferguson light of contemporary know of the Fourteenth Amendr segregation. See supra, p. We hold that the Equal I teenth Amendment require to the University of Texas is reversed and the cause not inconsistent with this

in the cafeteria at the same time as ceber st
to a special table there. Held: The contigs new
lant is required to receive his eduestion derrube inv

and present right to the equal proven of

2503

ting our decisions
U.S. 337 (1938),

J. S. 631 (1948),
t held that the
vide him with the
ed that education
further held that
enied him admis-
oid. On the as-
d follow the con-
ed to grant the
e cause with full
er orders to secure

aws. 87 F. Supp.

homa legislature

assume rform

admission of Ne

attended by white

ved by

for his

ns offered courses

Fourteenth Amendment precludes sah binam zamest

the State based upon race. Pp. 636-642

(a) The restrictions imposed upon appelant

his ability to study, to engage in discussions and ereenge with other students, and, in general, to learn ha terlewat 640-641

(b) That appellant may still be set apart by

and may be in no better position when these pestments
moved is irrelevant, for there is a constitutional A Ramanas para en
restrictions imposed by the State which proton the m
commingling of students and the refusal of students
where the State presents no such bar. P. 641

(e) Having been admitted to a state-supported pratos e
appellant must receive the same treatment at "be hate the
State as students of other races. P. 642

87 F. Supp. 528, reversed

The amendment

:the program of ;es or institutions basis." Appel

The proceedings below are stated in the opinion. The judgment below is reversed, p. 642.

Robert L. Carter and Amos T. Holl argued the res for appellant. With them on the brief were The

to each of the sec

it the provisions of
ruction leading to a
ed colleges or insti-
ed for and/or used

uction leading to a
stitutions of higher
sed by the colored
truction leading to
8 or institutions of

Okla. Stat. Ann.
ned as "classroom

arate times

Id

C.A. §

presup

reason

ture of

it risk.

rases, I defi

ant will any la8 aware lisqualiid such

gress has not acted, state legislation or a final court order is invalid which materially affects interstate commerce."

v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 262 (order directing the operation of intrastate passenger train service over specified route).

Statutes dealing with employment of labor-full crew laws: Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453 (Arkansas full crew law applied to interstate trains); St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 240 U. S. 518 (Arkansas full crew laws applied to switching crews); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Norwood, 283 U. S. 249 (Arkansas full crew laws applied to freight and switching crews).

17 Statutes or orders dealing with safety of operations: Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Kaw Valley Dist., 233 U. S. 75 (order requiring railroad to remove its bridges over river for flood control purposes); South Covington & Cincinnati R. Co. v. Covington, 235 U. S. 537 (ordinances regulating the number of passengers to be carried in, the number of cars to be run and the temperature of an interstate street railway car invalid; those requiring rails on front and rear platform, ventilation and cleaning valid); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Blackwell, 244 U. S. 310 (Georgia Blow Post Law requiring train to blow whistle and slow down almost to a stop at each grade crossing where numerous grade crossings were involved. Cf. Southern R. Co. v. King, 217 U. S. 524, where answer held insufficient to permit proof of burden of the statute on interstate commerce); Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761 (statute limiting number of cars in freight train to 70 and passenger cars to 14).

Statutes or orders requiring local train service: Illinois Central R. Co. v. Illinois, 163 U. S. 142 (statute applied to require fast mail train to detour from main line in order to stop at station for the taking on and discharge of passengers); Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Illinois, 177 U. S. 514 (Illinois statute requiring interstate train to stop at each station); Mississippi Railroad Comm'n v. Illinois Central R. Co., 203 U. S. 335 (order of commission requiring interstate train to stop at small town); Atlantic Coast Line v. Wharton, 207 U. S. 328 (South Carolina statute and railroad commission order requiring interstate train to stop at small town); St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Arkansas, 217 U. S. 136 (statute and order requiring delivery of freight cars to local shippers); Herndon v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 218 U. S. 135 (statute requiring interstate train to stop at junction point); Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Wisconsin Railroad Comm'n, 237 U. S. 220