The city of Jackson, MS had 5 public swimming pools. 4 were for whites, 1 was for blacks.
The district court said that this practice was unconstitutional.
In response, the city closed all of the pools down, stating that it could not operate the pools safely or economically if they had to be desegregated.
A group of black citizens from Jackson brought suit arguing that the shutting down of the pools was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
SCOTUS held that the shutting down of the pools was constitutional.
Is proof of discriminatory purpose sufficient for a law to be declared unconstitutional?
For a law to be declared unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause, there must be adequate evidence of both discriminatory impact and discriminatory purpose.
No case decided by SCOTUS has held that a legislative act may violate equal protection solely because of the motivation of the men who voted for it.
It is extremely difficult for a court to ascertain the motivation, or collection of different motivations, that lie behind a legislative enactment.
There is an element of futility in a judicial attempt to invalidate a law because of the bad motives of its supporters; it could just be passed again with different express reasons.
Thus, proof of discriminatory impact is also required; here, blacks and whites were affected in the same way.
A state may discontinue any of its municipal services, but it may not do so for the purpose of perpetuating or installing apartheid or because it finds life in a multiracial community difficult or unpleasant.