This is an appeal from a decision of the District Court
sustaining the constitutionality of a state statute which
authorized racial segregation in the public schools of Kansas. In
the District Court, the State intervened and defended the
constitutionality of the statute, but neither the State nor any of
the other appellees has entered an appearance or filed a brief
here. Because of the importance of the issue, this Court requests
that the State present its views at the oral argument. If the State
does not desire to appear, the Attorney General of the State is
requested to advise this Court whether the State's default shall be
construed as a concession of the invalidity of the statute. Pp.
344 U. S.
The decision below is reported in 98 F. Supp.
This action was instituted by the appellants attacking a Kansas
statute which authorized segregation in the schools of that State.
It was urged that the Kansas was without power to enact such
legislation, claimed by appellants to be in contravention of the
In the District Court, the State, by its Governor and Attorney
General, intervened and defended the constitutionality of the
statute. The court upheld its validity, 98 F.
In this Court, the appellants continue their constitutional
attack. No appearance has been entered here by
Page 344 U. S. 142
the State of Kansas, the Board of Education of Topeka, and the
other appellees; nor have they presented any brief in support of
the statute's validity. The Court has been advised by counsel for
the Board of Education that it does not propose to appear in oral
argument or present a brief.
Because of the national importance of the issue presented and
because of its importance to the Kansas, we request that the State
present its views at oral argument. If the State does not desire to
appear, we request the Attorney General to advise whether the
State's default shall be construed as a concession of