Lee v. Washington

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 390 U.S. 333, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1212, 88 S. Ct. 994, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2223, SCDB 1967-078

Decision Date: 3/11/1968

Docket Number: No. 75

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1212, 88 S. Ct. 994, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 2223, SCDB 1967-078 (1968)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1968

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 271 decisions

271

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

108

1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

E.D. Cal.23

5th Cir.19

M.D. Ala.14

7th Cir.11

9th Cir.11

U.S.11

Most recently cited by10

2025Johnson v. Cooper E.D. Tenn.
2025Bruce Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama 11th Cir.
2025Manuel v. Metzger D. Del.
2024(PC) Edwards v. Swarthout E.D. Cal.
2023(PC) Brooks v. Newsom E.D. Cal.
2023(PC) Cortez v. Sacramento State Prison Officer E.D. Cal.
2023(PC) Adkins v. Austin E.D. Cal.
2023(PC) Bailey v. Clason E.D. Cal.
2023(PC) Cortijo v. St. Andre E.D. Cal.
2023(PC) Gilbert v. Perez E.D. Cal.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

LEE, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS OF ALABAMA, et al. v. WASHINGTON et al.

Attorneys

Nicholas S. Hare, Special Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were MacDonald Gallion, Attorney General, Gordon Madison, Assistant Attorney General, and J. M. Breckenridge.
Charles Morgan, Jr., argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Orzell Billingsley, Jr., and Melvin L. Wulf.

majority Per Curiam.

This appeal challenges a decree of a three-judge District Court declaring that certain Alabama statutes violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the extent that they require segregation of the races, in prisons and jails, and establishing a schedule for desegregation of these institutions. The State’s contentions that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which relates to class actions, was violated in this case and that the challenged statutes are not unconstitutional are without merit. The remaining contention of the State is that the specific orders directing desegregation of prisons and jails make no allowance for the necessities of prison security and discipline, but we do not so read the “Order, Judgment and Decree” of the District Court, which when read as a whole we find unexceptionable.

The judgment is affirmed.