jons which cor@mn discr
a state or 1its agencicse.
governmental power DY
dccis
cise of
e oxclusion of colorecd porsons
Wost Virginia 100 U.S. 303,
petit juries was condemnecd
Loulsiana 306 U.S. 354, the
strauvder Ve
as violative of the
from service on
constituticnal provislone. In Plerrc V.
same holding was made with respect to grand jurics. In Nixon V.
Condon 286 U.S. 73 and Nixon V. Herndon 27% U.S8.536, discriminations
with respcct to participating in party primarics were condertned. In
Lane v. Wilson 307 U.S. 268 and Guinn v. United States 238 U.S. 37
like holdings wore nade with respect to discrimination relating to
the right to participatc in cloctlons. Discrinminaticns with rcspcct
to the right to own and occupy property were condenned in Buchanan v,
Warley 245 U.S. 60; with respect to Pullman acconncdations on rail-
roads, in McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka and 8.F.R. Co. 235 U.S. 151; with
respect to educaticnal facilitles, in Missouri cx rel Gaines V.
canada 305 U.S, 337; with respect to the division of school funds
in Davenport v. Cloverport 72 F. 689; and with respcet to the pursuit
of a trade or vocasion, in Chaircs v. City of Atlanta 164 Ga. 755,
139 8.E. 559.
We comec, then, to the second question, 1l.c¢. 4o plaintiffs as
Negro tenchers holding certificates qualifying then to teach in the
public schools of Norfolk have rights which are infringed by the
diserinination of which they complain? The answer to this nust be
in the affirmativec. As tcachers holding certificates fron the state,
plaint iffs have acquired a professicnal status, It 1s true that
they arc not cntitled by reason of that fact alcne to contracts to
teach in the public schools of the state; for whetor any particular
one of then shall be employed to toach is a matter resting 1in the
a discretion of the school authoritics; but they aroc entitled to
soun
;itions for which thel m&YVaPPly, and
Nl dvia hk+ wngusstirnohly he awarded to scone of “ther, “dsrecl without
wnconstitutional dlsecrinination on account of race. As pointed out
by Judge Chesnut, in Mills V. Lowndcs, supra, they are qualificd
school teachers and have the clvil right, as such, to pursue their
profcssion without being subjected to discriminatory legislation on
account of race or color. It is no answer to this to say that the
hiring of any tcocher is a matter resting in the discretion of the
school authoritiecs. Plaintiffs, as teachcrs qualified anl subject tc
employment by the state, are entitled to apuly for the positions
and to have the discretion of the authoritics cxercised lawfully and
