## Facts

- Boston operated public primary schools for resident children ages four to seven under the supervision of a general school committee and a primary school committee.
- Admission required an “admission ticket” issued by a district committee member, who generally admitted children living nearest a given school, except where “special provision” existed.
- Boston set aside two primary schools exclusively for Black children and designated the remaining primary schools for white children.
- Sarah C. Roberts, a five-year-old Black child, sought admission to the nearest primary school to her home, which was designated for white children.
- A committee member refused to issue a ticket for that school and directed Sarah to attend one of the designated Black schools, located farther from her home.
- Appeals to both the primary school committee and the general school committee were denied.
- Sarah, through her father as next friend, sued the City of Boston for damages under an 1845 Massachusetts statute authorizing recovery when a child is “unlawfully excluded” from public school instruction.
- The case reached the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on an agreed statement of facts.

## Issues

1. Whether Boston’s school committees had legal authority under Massachusetts law to maintain racially separate primary schools and assign Black children to the designated Black schools.
2. Whether requiring Sarah Roberts to attend a separate school for Black children constituted an “unlawful exclusion” from public school instruction under the 1845 statute.
3. Whether constitutional equality before the law barred race-based separation in public primary schooling when schooling was provided.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court entered judgment for the City of Boston.
- The court held that the school committees had lawful discretion to organize schools and assign pupils, including by providing separate schools for Black children.
- Because Sarah had access to a public primary school designated for Black children, she was not “unlawfully excluded” within the meaning of the 1845 statute.
- The court treated the desirability of segregation as a matter for school authorities, not judicial control, absent a clear legal violation.

## Legal Principles

- A school committee vested with statutory superintendence over public schools has broad discretionary authority to regulate school organization and pupil assignment, subject to express legal limits.
- “Unlawful exclusion” from public school instruction requires more than assignment to a different school; access to a public school provided by the municipality defeats a damages claim under the 1845 statute.
- Constitutional equality before the law was not construed to forbid all classifications in school administration; the court permitted race-based separation as an administrative rule when public instruction was furnished.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Boston’s authority to operate racially separate public primary schools and concluded that assigning a Black child to the designated Black school—rather than a nearer white school—did not amount to an unlawful exclusion from public instruction for purposes of statutory damages.


Roberts v. City of Bos., 59 Mass. (5 Cush.) 198 (1850)