## Facts

- Jackson, Mississippi operated five public swimming pools on a segregated basis: four for white patrons and one for Black patrons.
- After prior federal litigation held enforced segregation in recreational facilities unconstitutional, the city desegregated several public facilities but chose not to operate swimming pools on an integrated basis.
- The city closed four city-owned pools and surrendered its lease on the fifth pool to the YMCA, which operated the pool privately.
- Black residents sued to compel the city to reopen and operate the pools on a desegregated basis, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and the Thirteenth Amendment.
- The district court found the closures justified by concerns about public safety and the economics of operating integrated pools and rejected the constitutional claims.
- The Fifth Circuit (en banc) affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether a city violates the Equal Protection Clause by closing public swimming pools to everyone rather than operating them on an integrated basis.
2. Whether closing the pools constituted a “badge or incident of slavery” prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- Closing the pools to all persons did not deny equal protection because the ordinance was facially neutral and did not treat Black residents differently from white residents in legal access.
- The Court declined to invalidate the closures based solely on alleged discriminatory motive where the record contained substantial evidence supporting nonracial justifications.
- The Court held the closures did not constitute a “badge or incident of slavery” under the Thirteenth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- A government action that denies access to a public facility to all citizens on equal terms is not, without more, an Equal Protection violation.
- A facially neutral enactment generally is not unconstitutional under equal protection solely because decisionmakers acted with improper motives.
- The Thirteenth Amendment is not violated by the government’s withdrawal from providing a public service absent state action imposing racial discrimination as such.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Jackson’s decision to cease operating public swimming pools for everyone—rather than operate them on an integrated basis—did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Thirteenth Amendment, even if the closures were undertaken to avoid racial integration, because the ordinance applied equally and the city withdrew from operating pools altogether.


Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (1971)