The Oklahoma Bar Journal September 2024

W omen in L aw

Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher

I N 1946, NO INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION in the state of Oklahoma accepted Black students as enrollees. At the same time, Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher was a recent graduate of Langston University and eager to enter law school.

handed down its decision that Oklahoma had violated the 14th Amendment and issued a man date that Oklahoma must provide Ms. Sipuel the same opportunity for securing a legal education as it provided other students in the state and must do so forthwith. In continued opposition to the admission of Black students to the OU School of Law, the gov ernor, the attorney general and the Oklahoma Board of Regents selected the alternative of pro viding a separate law school for Ms. Sipuel. There was an

After a petition for rehear ing was denied, Ms. Sipuel’s attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. They based their request on the allegation that Oklahoma was violating the equal protection requirement of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in refusing their client’s admission to the one state-supported law school. The writ was granted, and oral argu ments were set for Jan. 8, 1948. Within seven days of the oral argument, the U.S. Supreme Court

On Jan. 16, 1946, Ms. Sipuel attempted to enroll in the law school at OU. She was refused admission by the president of the university, who referred her to Title 70, Sections 452-464 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which prohib ited Black students from attending schools in Oklahoma. Two days after Ms. Sipuel was denied admission to the OU School of Law, attorney Thurgood Marshall flew to Oklahoma City and joined with attorney Amos T. Hall of Tulsa to file a petition for a writ mandamus in the District Court of Cleveland County. District Judge Ben T. Williams, on July 9, 1946, ruled to deny the writ of mandamus on the basis that the laws of Oklahoma prohibited the university from admitting Black students. He further based his decision on the fact that Oklahoma maintained an out-of-state tuition plan for Black citizens who wanted to secure graduate training that was not available to them in the state. The next appeal was to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, where Mr. Marshall argued the case. The Oklahoma Supreme Court sus tained the ruling of the Cleveland County District Court.

She further stated, ‘Having suffered severely from bigotry and racial discrimination as a student, I am sensitive to that kind of thing,’ and she said she planned to bring a new dimension to university policies.

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

46 | SEPTEMBER 2024

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL