Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

GONG LUM v. RICE Case Brief

Supreme Court of United States1927
275 U.S. 78 48 S.Ct. 91 72 L.Ed. 172

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A Chinese-American student was excluded from a white public school in Mississippi. The Supreme Court held that classifying her as “colored” and requiring her to attend a school for non-white children did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, affirming “separate but equal.”

Legal Significance: This case unanimously extended the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson beyond the Black-white binary, affirming a state’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment to racially segregate students of Asian descent by classifying them as “colored” for purposes of public education.

GONG LUM v. RICE Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Martha Lum, a nine-year-old United States citizen of Chinese descent, was a resident of the Rosedale Consolidated High School District in Mississippi. On the first day of school, she was admitted but later notified by the superintendent that she was excluded from attending. The exclusion was based on an order from the Board of Trustees, which acted pursuant to Mississippi’s state constitution. Section 207 of the Mississippi Constitution mandated that “Separate schools shall be maintained for children of the white and colored races.” The state supreme court interpreted “colored races” to encompass all non-white races, including the “Mongolian or yellow race.” Consequently, Martha Lum was classified as “colored” and barred from the school designated for white children. Her father, Gong Lum, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that since his daughter was not “colored” in the traditional sense and there were no schools specifically for Chinese children, her exclusion from the white school denied her the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The petition did not allege that no school for colored children was available for her to attend in the county.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a state’s classification of a United States citizen of Chinese descent as “colored” and her subsequent assignment to a public school for non-white children violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

No. The Court held that the state’s action did not conflict with Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui o

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a state’s classification of a United States citizen of Chinese descent as “colored” and her subsequent assignment to a public school for non-white children violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

*Gong Lum v. Rice* solidified and expanded the "separate but equal" doctrine, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea

Legal Rule

A state's provision of "separate but equal" educational facilities for different races Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proiden

Legal Analysis

Chief Justice Taft, writing for a unanimous Court, framed the issue not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A state may classify a child of Chinese descent as “colored”
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat n

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More