Post

Notable that circa 1948, segregation *was* consistent with SCOTUS precedent. Truman relied on his own interpretation of the Constitution, rather than deferring to the court.

Professa Murray@kalimurray.bsky.social

Guys: Truman’s EO that desegrated the Army was valid b/c: (a) it was an order to an agency; and (b) it was constitutional b/c SEGREGATION WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

Professa Murray

@kalimurray.bsky.social

6 Sept

I would say: it was complicated even in 1948, we were moving towards Sweatt v. Painter (1950), and we had signals from Shelley v. Kramer (1948, and as earlier like Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada, that the law was changing in this area. We also had significant disagreement in the Army itself.

Pat Sobkowski

@patsobkowski.com

Shelley was a really narrow decision, though. And even the deliberations in Brown were close until Warren’s sheer happenstance appointment. Certainly complex.

6/9/26, 9:20 pm0 reposts1 like

Professa Murray

@kalimurray.bsky.social

6 Sept

It was a complex political moment; and Presidents do have some responsive power as a constitutional actors, which plays out in EOs. You can argue here that the President’s orders could reflect the re-trenchment of FAIR and that might be acceptable, IF civil rights statute did not exist.