## Facts

- In 1960, twelve Black students participated in a sit-in at a privately owned restaurant in Baltimore that refused to serve Black customers.
- The restaurant’s hostess, acting on instructions from the corporate president, told the students they would not be served solely because of their race.
- The students sat at tables and refused to leave unless served.
- After police indicated warrants were needed, the restaurant president swore out warrants, and the students were arrested.
- The students were charged and later convicted under Maryland’s criminal trespass statute for remaining on private property after notice to leave.
- While Supreme Court review was pending, Baltimore City and Maryland enacted public-accommodations laws prohibiting racial discrimination by restaurants and similar establishments.

## Issues

1. Whether enforcing a state criminal trespass law to remove and convict sit-in demonstrators protesting racial exclusion by a privately owned restaurant violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.
2. Whether, given intervening state and local public-accommodations legislation, the convictions should be set aside because the conduct was arguably no longer criminal under state law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the state court judgment and remanded to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
- The Court declined to decide the federal constitutional questions.
- The Court directed the state court to consider whether the intervening change in Maryland and Baltimore law required nullification of the convictions.
- Concurring Justices would have reached the constitutional issues more directly, with some viewing state enforcement of trespass law as unconstitutional state action when used to enforce racial exclusion.
- A dissent argued the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent applying trespass laws to remove persons from a private restaurant after the owner demanded they leave.

## Legal Principles

- When a significant change in applicable state law occurs after the highest state court decision but before Supreme Court review is resolved, the Supreme Court’s practice is to vacate and remand for reconsideration under the new state law.
- Under the common-law rule recognized as relevant by the Court, supervening decriminalization may require dismissal of pending criminal proceedings.
- Whether a state saving statute preserves convictions after statutory change is primarily a question of state law for state courts to decide.
- The Court may avoid constitutional adjudication where a case may be resolved on adequate and independent state-law grounds arising from intervening legislation.

## Conclusion

The Court set aside the affirmed trespass convictions and returned the case to Maryland’s courts to decide the effect of newly enacted public-accommodations laws, leaving unresolved whether state trespass enforcement supporting private racial exclusion violates the Fourteenth Amendment.


Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 (1964)