openapi: 3.1.0 info: title: OpenLaws API Documentation version: 1.0.4 description: OpenLaws Legal Data API contact: name: OpenLaws PBC url: https://openlaws.us/api email: team@openlaws.us license: name: Commercial url: https://openlaws.us/terms servers: - url: https://api.openlaws.us tags: - name: Jurisdictions description: All data (statutes, regulations, caselaw opinions) in OpenLaws are organized into jurisdictions. This allows you to scope searches and lookups to a specific state or federal jurisdiction (or both). - name: Laws description: Laws represent a specific law type in a Jurisdiction. For example, Code of Federal Regulations belongs to the FED Jurisdiction and is represented by the law_key `FED-CFR`. Florida Statutes belongs to the FL Jurisdiction and is represented by the law_key `FL-STAT`. Note that case law and case opinions are represented as Opinions that belong to Courts and Jurisdictions rather than Laws. - name: Law Divisions description: Divisions represent the hierarchical documents that make up statutes, regulations, and constitutions. Each document has a 'path' which uniquely identifies the document and where it resides in the hierarchy of the law. - name: Opinions description: Opinions represent published and unpublished case law opinions. Opinions belong to a Court and Jurisdiction. - name: Courts description: Courts issue Opinions and belong to a Jurisdiction. paths: /api/v1/jurisdictions: get: summary: List all Jurisdictions description: Returns all valid jurisdictions, coverage data, and metadata for OpenLaws Jurisdictions tags: - Jurisdictions responses: '200': description: GET jurisdictions returns all jurisdictions content: application/json: schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Jurisdiction' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' operationId: listJurisdictions /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/{law_key}/divisions: get: summary: Get a specific Law's Root Divisions description: Root divisions are top of the document hierarchy for a law. Typically, these documents are Titles or Agency document types. tags: - Law Divisions parameters: - name: jurisdiction_key description: Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories. in: path required: true schema: type: string example: AK - name: law_key description: A unique identifier for OpenLaws Laws. A `law_key` is a combination of a jurisdiction_key and an abbreviation of a law type joined by a '-' character. in: path required: true schema: type: string example: AK-CONST responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okArrayOfDivisions' description: Array of the root Divisions for a Law '400': $ref: '#/components/responses/badRequest' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' operationId: getRootDivisions /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/{law_key}/divisions/{path}: get: summary: Get Division by Jurisdiction and OpenLaws path description: A precise way of retrieving one Division object with its unique path tags: - Law Divisions parameters: - $ref: '#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam' - $ref: '#/components/parameters/lawKeyParam' - name: path description: An OpenLaws field that describes the Division's relationship to other documents in the law's hierarchy. Combined with the law_key and effective_date_* fields this creates a unique key for Divisions. in: path required: true schema: type: string example: title_12.chapter_i.part_4.subpart_d.section_4_62 responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okSingleDivision' description: Single Division matching the path '400': $ref: '#/components/responses/badRequest' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' '500': $ref: '#/components/responses/serverError' operationId: getDivsisionsByPath /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/{law_key}/divisions/updates: get: summary: (Enterprise Only) Get a list of Divisions that were created or updated after a date. description: This query returns a list of DivisionUpdate objects which are a lightweight subset of the Division. DivisionUpdates contain the law_key, path, and effective dates to identify Division which can be queried further for changes. Note that changes to Divisions may not be material. For example, the addition of whitespace or correction of a minor typo from the source text is considered an update. Pagination is supported using RFC-8288 HTTP Headers (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8288). tags: - Law Divisions parameters: - $ref: '#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam' - $ref: '#/components/parameters/lawKeyParam' - name: updated_after description: Return list of Divisions updated AFTER this ISO Date (UTC). Date must be within 90 days of the current date. in: query required: true schema: type: string format: date example: '2025-05-01' - name: limit in: query required: false schema: type: integer minimum: 1 default: 100 maximum: 500 description: Maximum number of results to return - $ref: '#/components/parameters/pageParam' responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okArrayOfDivisionUpdates' description: An array of DivisionUpdates which contain law_keys, paths, and effective dates to identify which Divisions have been created or changed. '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' operationId: getDivisionsUpdatedAfter /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/{law_key}/divisions/{starting_path}/updates: get: summary: (Enterprise Only) Get a list of Divisions that were created or updated after a date within a subtree of Divisions. description: This query returns a list of DivisionUpdate objects within the Division hierarchy beginning at starting_path. DivisionUpdates contain the law_key, path, and effective dates to identify Division which can be queried further for changes. Note that changes to Divisions may not be material. For example, the addition of whitespace or correction of a minor typo from the source text is considered an update. Pagination is supported using RFC-8288 HTTP Headers (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8288). tags: - Law Divisions parameters: - $ref: '#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam' - $ref: '#/components/parameters/lawKeyParam' - name: updated_after description: Return list of Divisions updated AFTER this ISO Date (UTC). Date must be within 90 days of the current date. in: query required: true schema: type: string format: date example: '2025-05-01' - name: starting_path description: The starting path to traverse down to find updated Divisions. in: path required: true schema: type: string example: title_12.chapter_i - name: limit in: query required: false schema: type: integer minimum: 1 default: 100 maximum: 500 description: Maximum number of results to return - $ref: '#/components/parameters/pageParam' responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okArrayOfDivisionUpdates' description: An array of DivisionUpdates which contain law_keys, paths, and effective dates to identify which Divisions have been created or changed. '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' operationId: getDivisionsByPathUpdatedAfter /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/search: get: summary: Keyword Search within a Jurisdiction description: Heuristic keyword search within a specific Jurisdiction (and optionally, federal Laws at the same time with `with_federal`). The search scope will include statutes, rules, regulations, and constitutions. See "Keyword Search Case Opinions" for case law search. tags: - Law Divisions parameters: - name: jurisdiction_key in: path required: true schema: type: string example: CA description: Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories. - $ref: '#/components/parameters/keywordQueryParam' - $ref: '#/components/parameters/queryTypeParam' - $ref: '#/components/parameters/withFederalParam' - $ref: '#/components/parameters/limitParam' responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okArrayOfDivisions' '400': $ref: '#/components/responses/badRequest' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' '500': $ref: '#/components/responses/serverError' operationId: keywordSearchDivisionWithinJurisdiction /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/{law_key}/search: get: summary: Keyword Search within a Jurisdiction and a specific law_key for that Jurisdiction description: 'Heuristic keyword search within a specific Jurisdiction and a specific type of law for that jurisdiction, ex: Jurisdiction=TX and law_key=TX-CONST (constitution)' tags: - Law Divisions parameters: - name: jurisdiction_key in: path required: true schema: type: string example: CA description: Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories. - name: law_key in: path required: true schema: type: string example: CA-RR description: A unique identifier for OpenLaws Laws. A `law_key` is a combination of a jurisdiction_key and an abbreviation of a law type joined by a '-' character. - name: query in: query required: true schema: type: string example: apple banana description: One or more keywords to search by - $ref: '#/components/parameters/queryTypeParam' - $ref: '#/components/parameters/limitParam' responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okArrayOfDivisions' '400': $ref: '#/components/responses/badRequest' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' '500': $ref: '#/components/responses/serverError' operationId: keywordSearchDivisionWithinLaw /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws/citations: get: summary: Lookup by Jurisdiction and Bluebook legal citation for a statute, regulation, or constitution description: We highly recommend this method of looking up Divisions when legal citations are available because it is the most precise way to identify relevant documents. tags: - Law Divisions parameters: - $ref: '#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam' - name: query in: query required: true schema: type: string example: 12 CFR § 1002.1 description: Bluebook legal citation for a statute, code, rule, regulation, or constitution responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okSingleDivision' '400': $ref: '#/components/responses/badRequest' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': description: GET by citation for non-existent citation returns a 404 content: application/json: schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Error' '500': $ref: '#/components/responses/serverError' operationId: lookupByBluebookCitation /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/laws: get: summary: Get Laws by Jurisdiction description: Jurisdictions, i.e., California, Texas, Federal, contain many laws, e.g., statutes, regulations, court rules, and a constitution. tags: - Laws parameters: - $ref: '#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam' responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okArrayOfLaws' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' operationId: getLawsByJurisdiction /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/courts: get: summary: Get Courts by Jurisdiction description: Lists all the active and inactive courts for a Jurisdiction. Note that federal bankruptcy courts are separate from federal courts. tags: - Courts parameters: - $ref: '#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam' responses: '200': description: List Courts by Jurisdiction content: application/json: schema: type: array items: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Court' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' operationId: getCourtsByJurisdiction /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/courts/{court_key}: get: summary: Get single Court description: Returns a single court identified by the court_key. Court key is also the unique identifier in the CourtListener data set. tags: - Courts parameters: - $ref: '#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam' - $ref: '#/components/parameters/courtKeyParam' responses: '200': description: Get one Court by courtKey content: application/json: schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Court' '400': $ref: '#/components/responses/badRequest' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' operationId: getCourt /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/opinions/search: get: summary: Keyword Search Case Opinions description: BM25 keyword search of case opinion text. tags: - Opinions parameters: - $ref: '#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam' - name: query in: query required: true schema: type: string example: elections description: One or more keywords to search by - $ref: '#/components/parameters/queryTypeParam' - $ref: '#/components/parameters/withFederalParam' - name: filing_start_date description: Filter opinions to those that were filed on or after this ISO date. in: query required: false schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/NullableDate' examples: start_date: value: '2020-01-01' no_start_date: value: -Infinity - name: filing_end_date description: Filter opinions to those that were filed before or on this ISO date. in: query required: false schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/NullableDate' examples: end_date: value: '2020-12-31' no_end_date: value: Infinity - name: court_keys in: query required: false schema: type: string default: false example: ca1,scotus description: Comma delimited list of court_keys. See GET /jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/courts for valid court_keys. For the FED jurisdiction, 'first_circuit'...'eleventh_circuit', 'dc_circuit', and 'federal_circuit' are also valid values which expand to all courts in that circuit. - $ref: '#/components/parameters/limitParam' responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okArrayOfOpinions' '400': $ref: '#/components/responses/badRequest' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' '500': $ref: '#/components/responses/serverError' operationId: keywordSearchOpinions /api/v1/jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/opinions/citations: get: summary: Lookup Case Opinion by Jurisdiction and Bluebook legal citation for a case description: Long form with parties or short form of case citations (volume-number reporter-abbreviation first-page-number) will work. tags: - Opinions parameters: - $ref: '#/components/parameters/jurisdictionKeyParam' - name: query in: query required: true schema: type: string example: 347 U.S. 483 description: Bluebook legal citation for a case responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okArrayOfOpinions' '400': $ref: '#/components/responses/badRequest' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' '404': $ref: '#/components/responses/notFound' '500': $ref: '#/components/responses/serverError' operationId: lookupOpinionByBluebookCitation /api/v1/laws: get: summary: Get all Laws description: Laws in OpenLaws represent statutes, rules and regulations, and constitutions tags: - Laws responses: '200': $ref: '#/components/responses/okArrayOfLaws' '401': $ref: '#/components/responses/unauthorized' operationId: getLaws components: securitySchemes: bearerAuth: description: Authenticate API requests via a bearer token type: http scheme: bearer bearerFormat: JWT schemas: Jurisdiction: type: object description: Jurisdictions are the highest abstraction in OpenLaws. They contain codified Laws, Courts, Reporters. Federal is a special case and contains several "sub-Jurisdictions" due to the government's scale and complexity. properties: name: type: string example: California key: type: string description: Unique identifier for the jurisdiction. Often this is the same as postal_abbreviation (CA and TX) but not always (FED, FED-BANKR, MIL, and TRIBAL.) example: CA state: type: string description: '(DEPRECATION WARNING: Use ''key'' instead. Will be deprecated in 1.1.0) Unique identifier for the jurisdiction. Often this is the same as postal_abbreviation (CA and TX) but not always (FED)' example: CA abbreviation: type: string description: (FUTURE USE) Bluebook abbreviation for the Jurisdiction if applicable example: Cal. postal_abbreviation: description: (FUTURE USE) type: string example: CA laws: type: array items: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Law' courts: description: (FUTURE USE) type: array items: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Court' example: [] required: - key - name - laws Law: type: object description: Laws represent one type of codified or administrative law for a specific Jurisdiction. Laws contain Divisions. Please see the Court and Opinion schemas for case law. properties: key: type: string example: CA-RR description: OpenLaws identifier for the Law. jurisdiction_key: type: string example: CA description: State or province when applicable. state: type: string example: CA description: (Deprecated. Use `jurisdiction` instead.) State or province when applicable. law_type: type: string example: regulations description: Type of Law, including statutes, rules, regulations, court rules, constitution, case law name: type: string example: California Code of Regulations description: Jurisdiction's name for the Law aliases: type: - string - 'null' example: null features: type: array items: $ref: '#/components/schemas/LawFeature' description: For future use. required: - key - jurisdiction_key - law_type Court: description: Represents a single Court and closely aligns to CourtListener's data set. Courts contain Opinions. type: object properties: key: type: string example: scotus description: Unique identifier for the court jurisdiction_key: type: string example: FED description: Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories. parent_court_key: type: - string - 'null' example: null description: Parent court key if applicable name: type: string example: Supreme Court of the United States short_name: type: string example: Supreme Court abbreviation: type: string example: SCOTUS start_date: allOf: - $ref: '#/components/schemas/NullableDate' - example: '1789-09-24' end_date: allOf: - $ref: '#/components/schemas/NullableDate' - example: null DivisionUpdate: description: '**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** Divisions are the primary building block in OpenLaws. Each Division represents a document at a snapshot in time. Divisions can contain child Divisions (and thus also have parent and ancestor Divisions). OpenLaws strives to closely align with the source material including errors and omissions in the source.' type: object properties: jurisdiction_key: type: string example: FED description: Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories. law_key: type: string example: FED-CFR description: A unique identifier for OpenLaws Laws. A `law_key` is a combination of a jurisdiction_key and an abbreviation of a law type. path: type: string example: title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155.subpart_b.section_155_194 description: The concatenation of all of the Division's ancestors' labels resulting in a filepath-like string label: type: string example: section_155_194 description: Human-readable identifier for the Division; guaranteed to be unique among its sibling Divisions display_name: type: string example: 'Section 155.194: Catsup' description: 'OpenLaws concatenation of the division_type, identifier, and name along with some business logic to create a reliable, human-friendly string to use for display for this Division. For example, ''Title 12: Banking and Finance''' openlaws_web_url: type: string example: https://static.openlaws.us/laws/fed/cfr/title_21/chapter_i/subchapter_b/part_155/subpart_b/section_155_194 description: Static web view provided by OpenLaws for display to customers and use as citations for LLM outputs. effective_date_start: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Date' example: '1993-01-06' description: If the source document and annotations contain a starting effective date, this field will be contain an ISO 8601 date. This date is inclusive. effective_date_end: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Date' example: Infinity description: If the source document and annotations contain an ending effective date, this field will be contain an ISO 8601 date. This date is inclusive. is_repealed: type: - boolean - 'null' example: null description: (Experimental) Whether the Division is repealed, contingent repealed, or no longer effective. current_as_of: $ref: '#/components/schemas/NullableDate' description: '**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** The ISO 8601 date of when the last time the Law was checked for changes.' example: '2025-03-01' updated_at: $ref: '#/components/schemas/NullableDate' description: '**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** The ISO 8601 date of when this Division''s source was updated.' example: '1993-01-06' deleted_on: $ref: '#/components/schemas/NullableDate' description: '**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** The ISO 8601 date of when this Division was no longer found in the source and removed from OpenLaws.' example: '2024-12-31' required: - jurisdiction_key - law_key - path - effective_date_start - effective_date_end - updated_at Division: description: Divisions are the primary building block in OpenLaws. Each Division represents a document at a snapshot in time. Divisions can contain child Divisions (and thus also have parent and ancestor Divisions). OpenLaws strives to closely align with the source material including errors and omissions in the source. type: object properties: jurisdiction_key: type: string example: FED description: Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories. law_key: type: string example: FED-CFR description: A unique identifier for OpenLaws Laws. A `law_key` is a combination of a jurisdiction_key and an abbreviation of a law type. label: type: string example: section_155_194 description: Human-readable identifier for the Division; guaranteed to be unique among its sibling Divisions path: type: string example: title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155.subpart_b.section_155_194 description: The concatenation of all of the Division's ancestors' labels resulting in a filepath-like string division_type: type: string example: section description: OpenLaws standardization of the Division document type identifier: type: - string - 'null' example: '155.194' description: The source document's identifier range_end_identifier: type: - string - 'null' example: null description: If the Division is part a range, this contains the ending value for the identifier range, e.g., §§ 100 to 200 -> 200 is the range_end_identifier. name: type: - string - 'null' example: Catsup description: The name of the document from the source document. display_name: type: string example: 'Section 155.194: Catsup' description: 'OpenLaws concatenation of the division_type, identifier, and name along with some business logic to create a reliable, human-friendly string to use for display for this Division. For example, ''Title 12: Banking and Finance''' openlaws_web_url: type: string example: https://static.openlaws.us/laws/fed/cfr/title_21/chapter_i/subchapter_b/part_155/subpart_b/section_155_194 description: Static web view provided by OpenLaws for display to customers and use as citations for LLM outputs. effective_date: type: string example: 1993-01-06...Infinity description: '(DEPRECATION WARNING: This will be deprecated in favor of effective_date_start and effective_date_end.) If the source document and annotations contain an effective date, this field will be contain the start and end date as a range. Positive and negative infinity indicate the effective date is unbounded.' effective_date_start: allOf: - $ref: '#/components/schemas/Date' - example: '1993-01-06' description: If the source document and annotations contain a starting effective date, this field will be contain an ISO 8601 date. This date is inclusive. effective_date_end: allOf: - $ref: '#/components/schemas/Date' - example: Infinity description: If the source document and annotations contain an ending effective date, this field will be contain an ISO 8601 date. This date is inclusive. aliases: type: - string - 'null' example: '' description: Contains short or common names for the Division plaintext_content: type: string example: "(a) Identity -\n\n (1) Definition. Catsup, ketchup, or catchup is the food prepared from one or any\ \ combination of two or more of the following optional tomato ingredients:\n\n (i) Tomato concentrate as\ \ defined in § 155.191(a)(1), except that lemon juice, concentrated lemon juice, or safe and suitable organic\ \ acids may be used in quantities no greater than necessary to adjust the pH, and in compliance with § 155.191(b).\n\ \n (ii) The liquid derived from mature tomatoes of the red or reddish varieties Lycopersicum esculentum\ \ P. Mill.\n\n (iii) The liquid obtained from the residue from preparing such tomatoes for canning, consisting\ \ of peelings and cores with or without such tomatoes or pieces thereof.\n\n (iv) The liquid obtained from\ \ the residue from partial extraction of juice from such tomatoes.\n Such liquid is strained so as to exclude\ \ skins, seeds, and other coarse or hard substances in accordance with current good manufacturing practice. Prior\ \ to straining, food-grade hydrochloric acid may be added to the tomato material in an amount to obtain a pH no\ \ lower than 2.0. Such acid is then neutralized with food-grade sodium hydroxide so that the treated tomato material\ \ is restored to a pH of 4.2±0.2. The final composition of the food may be adjusted by concentration and/or by\ \ the addition of water. The food may contain salt (sodium chloride formed during acid neutralization shall be\ \ considered added salt) and is seasoned with ingredients as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The\ \ food is preserved by heat sterilization (canning), refrigeration, or freezing. When sealed in a container to\ \ be held at ambient temperatures, it is so processed by heat, before or after sealing, as to prevent spoilage.\n\ \n (2) Ingredients. One or any combination of two or more of the following safe and suitable ingredients in\ \ each of the following categories is added to the tomato ingredients specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:\n\ \n (i) Vinegars.\n\n (ii) Nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners. Such sweeteners if defined in part\ \ 168 of this chapter shall be as defined therein.\n\n (iii) Spices, flavoring, onions, or garlic.\n\n\ \ (3) Labeling.\n\n (i) The name of the food is “Catsup,” “Ketchup,” or “Catchup.”\n\n (ii) The\ \ following shall be included as part of the name or in close proximity to the name of the food:\n (*a*) The\ \ statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from canning” if\ \ the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section or tomato concentrate containing\ \ the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(ii) is present.\n\n (*b*) The statement “Made from” or “Made\ \ in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from partial extraction of juice” if the optional\ \ tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient\ \ specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(iii) is present.\n\n (iii) Label declaration. Each of the ingredients used\ \ in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this\ \ chapter; except that the name “tomato concentrate” may be used in lieu of the names “tomato puree,” “tomato\ \ pulp,” or “tomato paste” and when tomato concentrates are used, the labeling requirements of § 155.191(a)(3)(ii)(a)\ \ and (a)(3)(ii)(b) do not apply.\n\n(b) Quality.\n\n (1) The standard of quality for catsup is as follows:\ \ The consistency of the finished food is such that its flow is not more than 14 centimeters in 30 seconds at\ \ 20 °C when tested in a Bostwick Consistometer in the following manner: Check temperature of mixture and adjust\ \ to 20±1 °C. The trough must also be at a temperature close to 20 °C. Adjust end-to-end level of Bostwick Consistometer\ \ by means of the spirit level placed in trough of instrument. Side-to-side level may be adjusted by means of\ \ the built-in spirit level. Transfer sample to the dry sample chamber of the Bostwick Consistometer. Fill the\ \ chamber slightly more than level full, avoiding air bubbles as far as possible. Pass a straight edge across\ \ top of chamber starting from the gate end to remove excess product. Release gate of instrument by gradual pressure\ \ on lever, holding the instrument down at the same time to prevent its movement as the gate is released. Immediately\ \ start the stop watch or interval timer, and after 30 seconds read the maximum distance of flow to the nearest\ \ 0.1 centimeter. Clean and dry the instrument and repeat the reading on another portion of sample. Do not wash\ \ instrument with hot water if it is to be used immediately for the next determination, as this may result in\ \ an increase in temperature of the sample. For highest accuracy, the instrument should be maintained at a temperature\ \ of 20±1 °C. If readings vary more than 0.2 centimeter, repeat a third time or until satisfactory agreement is\ \ obtained. Report the average of two or more readings, excluding any that appear to be abnormal.\n\n (2) Determine\ \ compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).\n\n (3) If the quality of catsup falls below the standard prescribed\ \ in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard quality\ \ specified in § 130.14(a) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified, but in lieu of such general\ \ statement of substandard quality when the quality of the catsup falls below the standard, the label may bear\ \ the alternative statement, “Below Standard in Quality-Low Consistency.”\n\n(c) Fill of container.\n\n (1)\ \ The standard of fill of container for catsup, as determined by the general method for fill of container prescribed\ \ in § 130.12(b) of this chapter, is not less than 90 percent of the total capacity except:\n\n (i) When\ \ the food is frozen, or\n\n (ii) When the food is packaged in individual serving-size packages containing\ \ 56.7 grams (2 ounces) or less.\n\n (2) Determine compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).\n\n (3) If the\ \ catsup falls below the standard of fill prescribed in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, the label\ \ shall bear the general statement of substandard fill as specified in § 130.14(b) of this chapter, in the manner\ \ and form therein specified." description: Plaintext content without rich text formatting and markup to define pincite locations. Suitable for use with LLMs. markdown_content: type: string example: "1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a\" display=\"a\" >}} *Identity* -\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_1\"\ \ display=\"1\" >}} *Definition.* Catsup, ketchup, or catchup is the food prepared from one or any combination\ \ of two or more of the following optional tomato ingredients:\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_1_i\" display=\"\ i\" >}} Tomato concentrate as defined in § 155.191(a)(1), except that lemon juice, concentrated lemon juice, or\ \ safe and suitable organic acids may be used in quantities no greater than necessary to adjust the pH, and in\ \ compliance with § 155.191(b).\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_1_ii\" display=\"ii\" >}} The liquid derived\ \ from mature tomatoes of the red or reddish varieties *Lycopersicum esculentum* P. Mill.\n 1. {{< pincite\ \ identifier=\"a_1_iii\" display=\"iii\" >}} The liquid obtained from the residue from preparing such tomatoes\ \ for canning, consisting of peelings and cores with or without such tomatoes or pieces thereof.\n 1. \ \ {{< pincite identifier=\"a_1_iv\" display=\"iv\" >}} The liquid obtained from the residue from partial extraction\ \ of juice from such tomatoes.\n\n Such liquid is strained so as to exclude skins, seeds, and other\ \ coarse or hard substances in accordance with current good manufacturing practice. Prior to straining, food-grade\ \ hydrochloric acid may be added to the tomato material in an amount to obtain a pH no lower than 2.0. Such acid\ \ is then neutralized with food-grade sodium hydroxide so that the treated tomato material is restored to a pH\ \ of 4.2±0.2. The final composition of the food may be adjusted by concentration and/or by the addition of water.\ \ The food may contain salt (sodium chloride formed during acid neutralization shall be considered added salt)\ \ and is seasoned with ingredients as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The food is preserved by\ \ heat sterilization (canning), refrigeration, or freezing. When sealed in a container to be held at ambient temperatures,\ \ it is so processed by heat, before or after sealing, as to prevent spoilage. \n { .parens-lower-roman\ \ }\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_2\" display=\"2\" >}} *Ingredients.* One or any combination of two or\ \ more of the following safe and suitable ingredients in each of the following categories is added to the tomato\ \ ingredients specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_2_i\" display=\"\ i\" >}} Vinegars.\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_2_ii\" display=\"ii\" >}} Nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners.\ \ Such sweeteners if defined in part 168 of this chapter shall be as defined therein.\n 1. {{< pincite\ \ identifier=\"a_2_iii\" display=\"iii\" >}} Spices, flavoring, onions, or garlic.\n { .parens-lower-roman\ \ }\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_3\" display=\"3\" >}} *Labeling.*\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"\ a_3_i\" display=\"i\" >}} The name of the food is “Catsup,” “Ketchup,” or “Catchup.”\n 1. {{< pincite\ \ identifier=\"a_3_ii\" display=\"ii\" >}} The following shall be included as part of the name or in close proximity\ \ to the name of the food:\n\n\n (*a*) The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case\ \ may be, “residual tomato material from canning” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)\ \ of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(ii) is present.\n\ \n\n\n (*b*) The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato\ \ material from partial extraction of juice” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iv)\ \ of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(iii) is present.\n\ \ 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"a_3_iii\" display=\"iii\" >}} *Label declaration.* Each of the ingredients\ \ used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130\ \ of this chapter; except that the name “tomato concentrate” may be used in lieu of the names “tomato puree,”\ \ “tomato pulp,” or “tomato paste” and when tomato concentrates are used, the labeling requirements of § 155.191(a)(3)(ii)(*a*)\ \ and (a)(3)(ii)(*b*) do not apply.\n { .parens-lower-roman }\n { .parens-decimal }\n1. {{< pincite\ \ identifier=\"b\" display=\"b\" >}} *Quality.*\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"b_1\" display=\"1\" >}} The\ \ standard of quality for catsup is as follows: The consistency of the finished food is such that its flow is\ \ not more than 14 centimeters in 30 seconds at 20 °C when tested in a Bostwick Consistometer in the following\ \ manner: Check temperature of mixture and adjust to 20±1 °C. The trough must also be at a temperature close to\ \ 20 °C. Adjust end-to-end level of Bostwick Consistometer by means of the spirit level placed in trough of instrument.\ \ Side-to-side level may be adjusted by means of the built-in spirit level. Transfer sample to the dry sample\ \ chamber of the Bostwick Consistometer. Fill the chamber slightly more than level full, avoiding air bubbles\ \ as far as possible. Pass a straight edge across top of chamber starting from the gate end to remove excess product.\ \ Release gate of instrument by gradual pressure on lever, holding the instrument down at the same time to prevent\ \ its movement as the gate is released. Immediately start the stop watch or interval timer, and after 30 seconds\ \ read the maximum distance of flow to the nearest 0.1 centimeter. Clean and dry the instrument and repeat the\ \ reading on another portion of sample. Do not wash instrument with hot water if it is to be used immediately\ \ for the next determination, as this may result in an increase in temperature of the sample. For highest accuracy,\ \ the instrument should be maintained at a temperature of 20±1 °C. If readings vary more than 0.2 centimeter,\ \ repeat a third time or until satisfactory agreement is obtained. Report the average of two or more readings,\ \ excluding any that appear to be abnormal.\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"b_2\" display=\"2\" >}} Determine\ \ compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"b_3\" display=\"3\" >}} If the quality\ \ of catsup falls below the standard prescribed in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall\ \ bear the general statement of substandard quality specified in § 130.14(a) of this chapter, in the manner and\ \ form therein specified, but in lieu of such general statement of substandard quality when the quality of the\ \ catsup falls below the standard, the label may bear the alternative statement, “Below Standard in Quality-Low\ \ Consistency.”\n { .parens-decimal }\n1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c\" display=\"c\" >}} *Fill of container.*\n\ \ 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c_1\" display=\"1\" >}} The standard of fill of container for catsup, as determined\ \ by the general method for fill of container prescribed in § 130.12(b) of this chapter, is not less than 90 percent\ \ of the total capacity except:\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c_1_i\" display=\"i\" >}} When the food\ \ is frozen, or\n 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c_1_ii\" display=\"ii\" >}} When the food is packaged in\ \ individual serving-size packages containing 56.7 grams (2 ounces) or less.\n { .parens-lower-roman }\n\ \ 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c_2\" display=\"2\" >}} Determine compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).\n \ \ 1. {{< pincite identifier=\"c_3\" display=\"3\" >}} If the catsup falls below the standard of fill prescribed\ \ in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard fill\ \ as specified in § 130.14(b) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified.\n { .parens-decimal\ \ }\n{ .parens-lower-alpha }" description: Rich text content in Commonmark with CSS annotations. Meant to be rendered into human-readable HTML along with the OpenLaws Markdown stylesheet. html_content: type: string example: '
  1. a Identity—(1) Definition. Catsup, ketchup, or catchup is the food prepared from one or any combination of two or more of the following optional tomato ingredients:
    1. i Tomato concentrate as defined in § 155.191(a)(1), except that lemon juice, concentrated lemon juice, or safe and suitable organic acids may be used in quantities no greater than necessary to adjust the pH, and in compliance with § 155.191(b).
    2. ii The liquid derived from mature tomatoes of the red or reddish varieties Lycopersicum esculentum P. Mill.
    3. iii The liquid obtained from the residue from preparing such tomatoes for canning, consisting of peelings and cores with or without such tomatoes or pieces thereof.
    4. iv The liquid obtained from the residue from partial extraction of juice from such tomatoes.

Such liquid is strained so as to exclude skins, seeds, and other coarse or hard substances in accordance with current good manufacturing practice. Prior to straining, food-grade hydrochloric acid may be added to the tomato material in an amount to obtain a pH no lower than 2.0. Such acid is then neutralized with food-grade sodium hydroxide so that the treated tomato material is restored to a pH of 4.2±0.2. The final composition of the food may be adjusted by concentration and/or by the addition of water. The food may contain salt (sodium chloride formed during acid neutralization shall be considered added salt) and is seasoned with ingredients as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The food is preserved by heat sterilization (canning), refrigeration, or freezing. When sealed in a container to be held at ambient temperatures, it is so processed by heat, before or after sealing, as to prevent spoilage.

  1. 2 Ingredients. One or any combination of two or more of the following safe and suitable ingredients in each of the following categories is added to the tomato ingredients specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section:
    1. i Vinegars.
    2. ii Nutritive carbohydrate sweeteners. Such sweeteners if defined in part 168 of this chapter shall be as defined therein.
    3. iii Spices, flavoring, onions, or garlic.
  2. 3 Labeling.
    1. i The name of the food is “Catsup,” “Ketchup,” or “Catchup.”
    2. ii The following shall be included as part of the name or in close proximity to the name of the food:
      1. a The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from canning” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(ii) is present.
      2. b The statement “Made from” or “Made in part from,” as the case may be, “residual tomato material from partial extraction of juice” if the optional tomato ingredient specified in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section or tomato concentrate containing the ingredient specified in § 155.191(a)(1)(iii) is present.
    3. iii Label declaration. Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter; except that the name “tomato concentrate” may be used in lieu of the names “tomato puree,” “tomato pulp,” or “tomato paste” and when tomato concentrates are used, the labeling requirements of § 155.191
      1. a (3)(ii)(a) and (a)(3)(ii)(b) do not apply.
      2. b Quality.
        1. 1 The standard of quality for catsup is as follows: The consistency of the finished food is such that its flow is not more than 14 centimeters in 30 seconds at 20 °C when tested in a Bostwick Consistometer in the following manner: Check temperature of mixture and adjust to 20±1 °C. The trough must also be at a temperature close to 20 °C. Adjust end-to-end level of Bostwick Consistometer by means of the spirit level placed in trough of instrument. Side-to-side level may be adjusted by means of the built-in spirit level. Transfer sample to the dry sample chamber of the Bostwick Consistometer. Fill the chamber slightly more than level full, avoiding air bubbles as far as possible. Pass a straight edge across top of chamber starting from the gate end to remove excess product. Release gate of instrument by gradual pressure on lever, holding the instrument down at the same time to prevent its movement as the gate is released. Immediately start the stop watch or interval timer, and after 30 seconds read the maximum distance of flow to the nearest 0.1 centimeter. Clean and dry the instrument and repeat the reading on another portion of sample. Do not wash instrument with hot water if it is to be used immediately for the next determination, as this may result in an increase in temperature of the sample. For highest accuracy, the instrument should be maintained at a temperature of 20±1 °C. If readings vary more than 0.2 centimeter, repeat a third time or until satisfactory agreement is obtained. Report the average of two or more readings, excluding any that appear to be abnormal.
        2. 2 Determine compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).
        3. 3 If the quality of catsup falls below the standard prescribed in paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard quality specified in § 130.14(a) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified, but in lieu of such general statement of substandard quality when the quality of the catsup falls below the standard, the label may bear the alternative statement, “Below Standard in Quality—Low Consistency.”
      3. c Fill of container. (1) The standard of fill of container for catsup, as determined by the general method for fill of container prescribed in § 130.12(b) of this chapter, is not less than 90 percent of the total capacity except:
        1. i When the food is frozen, or
        2. ii When the food is packaged in individual serving-size packages containing 56.7 grams (2 ounces) or less.
          1. 2 Determine compliance as specified in § 155.3(b).
          2. 3 If the catsup falls below the standard of fill prescribed in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, the label shall bear the general statement of substandard fill as specified in § 130.14(b) of this chapter, in the manner and form therein specified.
' description: '**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** Rich text content rendered from the Markdown to HTML with TailwindCSS styling and OpenLaws'' Markdown stylesheet.' annotations: type: - string - 'null' example: '[48 FR 3956, Jan. 28, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 15073, Apr. 17, 1984; 58 FR 2883, Jan. 6, 1993]' description: Annotations and interpretations if available from the official source. display_ancestors: type: array items: $ref: '#/components/schemas/DivisionDisplay' example: - display_name: 'Title 21: Food and Drugs' path: title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155.subpart_b.section_155_194 - display_name: 'Chapter I: Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services' path: title_21.chapter_i - display_name: 'Subchapter B: Food for Human Consumption' path: title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155.subpart_b.section_155_194 - display_name: 'Part 155: Canned Vegetables' path: title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155 - display_name: 'Subpart B: Requirements for Specific Standardized Canned Vegetables' path: title_21.chapter_i.subchapter_b.part_155.subpart_b description: '**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** Array of ancestors Divisions with display_name and paths. This can be used to render navigation breadcrumbs or to give LLMs context for the current Division.' display_children: type: array items: $ref: '#/components/schemas/DivisionDisplay' example: [] description: '**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** Array of children Divisions with display_name and paths. This can be used to render a list of child Divisions for the current Division.' source_url: type: string example: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-155/subpart-B/section-155.194 description: '**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** Authoritative Source URL for law. Deep-links to the source where supported.' current_as_of: $ref: '#/components/schemas/NullableDate' description: '**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** The ISO 8601 date of when the last time the Law was checked for changes.' example: '2025-03-01' updated_at: $ref: '#/components/schemas/NullableDate' description: '**(Law Firm and Enterprise plans only)** The ISO 8601 date of when this Division''s source was updated.' example: '1993-01-06' is_repealed: type: - boolean - 'null' example: null description: (Experimental) Whether the Division is repealed, contingent repealed, or no longer effective. is_reserved: type: - boolean - 'null' example: null description: (Experimental) Whether the Division identifier and range_end_identifier are reserved by the Jurisdiction. renumbered: type: - string - 'null' example: null description: (Experimental) Contains the new identifier and location where the Division was renumbered to. required: - jurisdiction_key - law_key - label - path - division_type - identifier - range_end_identifier - name - display_name - effective_date_start - effective_date_end - plaintext_content - markdown_content - annotations - display_ancestors - display_children - is_repealed - renumbered DivisionDisplay: description: Minimal subset of Division properties. Useful for building lists and drill downs of Division hierarchies. type: object properties: display_name: type: string example: 'Title 1: Government' description: 'OpenLaws concatenation of the division_type, identifier, and name along with some business logic to create a reliable, human-friendly string to use for display for this Division. For example, ''Title 12: Banking and Finance''' path: type: string example: title_1 description: The concatenation of all of the Division's ancestors' labels resulting in a filepath-like string required: - display_name - path Opinion: description: Court opinions that resembles the CourtListener schema but is modeled to be focused on the Opinion as the central concept. type: object properties: case_name: type: string example: Brown v. Board of Education description: Full case name including first and second parties jurisdiction_key: type: string example: FED description: Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories. court: description: Court $ref: '#/components/schemas/Court' docket_number: type: string example: NO. 1 description: Court docket identifier for the opinion date_filed: type: string format: date example: '1954-05-17' description: Date which the opinion was filed (ISO formatted date) judges: type: string example: Warren description: Name of judges if available attorneys: type: string example: Robert L. Carter argued the cause for appellants in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for appellants in No. 2 on the original argument and Spottswood W. Robinson, III, for appellants in No. 4 on the original argument, and both argued the causes for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. Louis L. Redding and Jack Green-berg argued the cause for respondents in No. 10 on the original argument and Jack Greenberg and Thurgood Marshall on the reargument., On the briefs were Robert L. Carter, Thurgood Marshall, Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Louis L. Redding, Jack Greenberg, George E. C. Hayes, William R. Ming, Jr., Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, Jr., Charles S. Scott, Frank D. Reeves, Harold R. Boulware and Oliver W. Hill for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents in No. 10; George M. Johnson for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4; and Loren Miller for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4. Arthur D. Shores and A. T. Walden were on the Statement as to Jurisdiction and a brief opposing a Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in No. 2., Paul E. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General of Kansas, argued the cause for appellees in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney General., John W. Davis argued the cause for appellees in No. 2 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. With him on the briefs in No. 2 were T. C. Callison, Attorney General of South Carolina, Robert McC. Figg, Jr., S. E. Rogers, William R. Meagher and Taggart Whipple., J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore argued the cause for appellees in No. 4 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. On the briefs in No. 4 were J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General, and Henry T. Wickham, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore, Archibald O. Robertson, John W. Riely and T. Justin Moore, Jr. for the Prince Edward County School Authorities, appellees., H. Albert Young, Attorney General of Delaware, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 10 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Louis J. Finger, Special Deputy Attorney General., By special leave of Court, Assistant Attorney General Rankin argued the cause for the United States on the reargument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10. With him on the brief were Attorney General Brownell, Philip Elman, Leon Ulman, William J. Lamont and M. Magdelena Schoch. James P. McGranery, then Attorney General, and Philip Elman filed a brief for the United States on the original argument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10., Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 were filed by Shad Polier, Will Maslow and Joseph B. Robison for the American Jewish Congress; by Edwin J. Lukas, Arnold Forster, Arthur Garfield Hays, Frank E. Karelsen, Leonard Haas, Saburo Kido and Theodore Leskes for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; and by John Ligtenberg and Selma M. Borchardt for the American Federation of Teachers. Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 and respondents in No. 10 were filed by Arthur J. Goldberg and Thomas E. Harris for the Congress of Industrial Organizations and by Phineas Indritz for the American Veterans Committee, Inc. description: Name of attorneys if available first_party: type: string example: Brown second_party: type: string example: Board of Education precedential_status: type: string example: Published description: Published or unpublished headmatter: type: string example: '## Parties BROWN et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA et al. ## Docket Number NO. 1. ## Other Date Argued December 9, 1952. ## Other Date Reargued December 8, 1953. ## Decision Date Decided May 17, 1954. ## Attorneys Robert L. Carter argued the cause for appellants in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for appellants in No. 2 on the original argument and Spottswood W. Robinson, III, for appellants in No. 4 on the original argument, and both argued the causes for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. Louis L. Redding and Jack Green-berg argued the cause for respondents in No. 10 on the original argument and Jack Greenberg and Thurgood Marshall on the reargument. ## Attorneys On the briefs were Robert L. Carter, Thurgood Marshall, Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Louis L. Redding, Jack Greenberg, George E. C. Hayes, William R. Ming, Jr., Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, Jr., Charles S. Scott, Frank D. Reeves, Harold R. Boulware and Oliver W. Hill for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents in No. 10; George M. Johnson for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4; and Loren Miller for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4. Arthur D. Shores and A. T. Walden were on the Statement as to Jurisdiction and a brief opposing a Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in No. 2. ## Attorneys Paul E. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General of Kansas, argued the cause for appellees in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney General. ## Attorneys John W. Davis argued the cause for appellees in No. 2 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. With him on the briefs in No. 2 were T. C. Callison, Attorney General of South Carolina, Robert McC. Figg, Jr., S. E. Rogers, William R. Meagher and Taggart Whipple. ## Attorneys J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore argued the cause for appellees in No. 4 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. On the briefs in No. 4 were J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General, and Henry T. Wickham, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore, Archibald O. Robertson, John W. Riely and T. Justin Moore, Jr. for the Prince Edward County School Authorities, appellees. ## Attorneys H. Albert Young, Attorney General of Delaware, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 10 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Louis J. Finger, Special Deputy Attorney General. ## Attorneys By special leave of Court, Assistant Attorney General Rankin argued the cause for the United States on the reargument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10. With him on the brief were Attorney General Brownell, Philip Elman, Leon Ulman, William J. Lamont and M. Magdelena Schoch. James P. McGranery, then Attorney General, and Philip Elman filed a brief for the United States on the original argument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10. ## Attorneys Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 were filed by Shad Polier, Will Maslow and Joseph B. Robison for the American Jewish Congress; by Edwin J. Lukas, Arnold Forster, Arthur Garfield Hays, Frank E. Karelsen, Leonard Haas, Saburo Kido and Theodore Leskes for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; and by John Ligtenberg and Selma M. Borchardt for the American Federation of Teachers. Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 and respondents in No. 10 were filed by Arthur J. Goldberg and Thomas E. Harris for the Congress of Industrial Organizations and by Phineas Indritz for the American Veterans Committee, Inc.' description: Markdown of headmatter if available extracted_by_ocr: type: boolean example: false description: Whether or not OCR was used to extract the text plaintext_content: type: string example: '347 U.S. 483 (1954) BROWN ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL. No. 1. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 9, 1952. Reargued December 8, 1953. Decided May 17, 1954. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.[*]*484 Robert L. Carter argued the cause for appellants in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. Thurgood Marshall argued the cause for appellants in No. 2 on the original argument and Spottswood W. Robinson, III, for appellants in No. 4 on the original argument, and both argued the causes for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. Louis L. Redding and Jack Greenberg argued the cause for respondents in No. 10 on the original argument and Jack Greenberg and Thurgood Marshall on the reargument. On the briefs were Robert L. Carter, Thurgood Marshall, Spottswood W. Robinson, III, Louis L. Redding, Jack Greenberg, George E. C. Hayes, William R. Ming, Jr., Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, Jr., Charles S. Scott, Frank D. Reeves, Harold R. Boulware and Oliver W. Hill for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents in No. 10; George M. Johnson for appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 4; and Loren Miller for appellants in Nos. 2 and 4. Arthur D. Shores and A. T. Walden were on the Statement as to Jurisdiction and a brief opposing a Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in No. 2. Paul E. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General of Kansas, argued the cause for appellees in No. 1 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Harold R. Fatzer, Attorney General. John W. Davis argued the cause for appellees in No. 2 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. With him on the briefs in No. 2 were T. C. Callison, Attorney General of South Carolina, Robert McC. Figg, Jr., S. E. Rogers, William R. Meagher and Taggart Whipple. *485 J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore argued the cause for appellees in No. 4 on the original argument and for appellees in Nos. 2 and 4 on the reargument. On the briefs in No. 4 were J. Lindsay Almond, Jr., Attorney General, and Henry T. Wickham, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Virginia, and T. Justin Moore, Archibald G. Robertson, John W. Riely and T. Justin Moore, Jr. for the Prince Edward County School Authorities, appellees. H. Albert Young, Attorney General of Delaware, argued the cause for petitioners in No. 10 on the original argument and on the reargument. With him on the briefs was Louis J. Finger, Special Deputy Attorney General. By special leave of Court, Assistant Attorney General Rankin argued the cause for the United States on the reargument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10. With him on the brief were Attorney General Brownell, Philip Elman, Leon Ulman, William J. Lamont and M. Magdelena Schoch. James P. McGranery, then Attorney General, and Philip Elman filed a brief for the United States on the original argument, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and affirmance in No. 10. Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 were filed by Shad Polier, Will Maslow and Joseph B. Robison for the American Jewish Congress; by Edwin J. Lukas, Arnold Forster, Arthur Garfield Hays, Frank E. Karelsen, Leonard Haas, Saburo Kido and Theodore Leskes for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; and by John Ligtenberg and Selma M. Borchardt for the American Federation of Teachers. Briefs of amici curiae supporting appellants in No. 1 and respondents in No. 10 were filed by Arthur J. Goldberg and Thomas E. Harris *486 for the Congress of Industrial Organizations and by Phineas Indritz for the American Veterans Committee, Inc. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.[1] *487 In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, *488 they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called "separate but equal" doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools. The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction.[2] Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.[3] *489 Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment''s history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public education at that time.[4] In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported *490 by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states; and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education. In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race.[5] The doctrine of *491 "separate but equal" did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation.[6] American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the "separate but equal" doctrine in the field of public education.[7] In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528, and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged.[8] In more recent cases, all on the graduate school *492 level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637. In none of these cases was it necessary to re-examine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education. In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other "tangible" factors.[9] Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education. In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout *493 the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws. Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." *494 Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs: "Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system."[10] Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority.[11] Any language *495 in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[12] Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term.[13] The Attorney General *496 of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.[14] It is so ordered. NOTES [*] Together with No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953. [1] In the Kansas case, Brown v. Board of Education, the plaintiffs are Negro children of elementary school age residing in Topeka. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas to enjoin enforcement of a Kansas statute which permits, but does not require, cities of more than 15,000 population to maintain separate school facilities for Negro and white students. Kan. Gen. Stat. § 72-1724 (1949). Pursuant to that authority, the Topeka Board of Education elected to establish segregated elementary schools. Other public schools in the community, however, are operated on a nonsegregated basis. The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, found that segregation in public education has a detrimental effect upon Negro children, but denied relief on the ground that the Negro and white schools were substantially equal with respect to buildings, transportation, curricula, and educational qualifications of teachers. 98 F. Supp. 797. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S. C. § 1253. In the South Carolina case, Briggs v. Elliott, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in Clarendon County. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. S. C. Const., Art. XI, § 7; S. C. Code § 5377 (1942). The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The court found that the Negro schools were inferior to the white schools and ordered the defendants to begin immediately to equalize the facilities. But the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 98 F. Supp. 529. This Court vacated the District Court''s judgment and remanded the case for the purpose of obtaining the court''s views on a report filed by the defendants concerning the progress made in the equalization program. 342 U.S. 350. On remand, the District Court found that substantial equality had been achieved except for buildings and that the defendants were proceeding to rectify this inequality as well. 103 F. Supp. 920. The case is again here on direct appeal under 28 U.S. C. § 1253. In the Virginia case, Davis v. County School Board, the plaintiffs are Negro children of high school age residing in Prince Edward county. They brought this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Va. Const., § 140; Va. Code § 22-221 (1950). The three-judge District Court, convened under 28 U.S. C. §§ 2281 and 2284, denied the requested relief. The court found the Negro school inferior in physical plant, curricula, and transportation, and ordered the defendants forthwith to provide substantially equal curricula and transportation and to "proceed with all reasonable diligence and dispatch to remove" the inequality in physical plant. But, as in the South Carolina case, the court sustained the validity of the contested provisions and denied the plaintiffs admission to the white schools during the equalization program. 103 F. Supp. 337. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U.S. C. § 1253. In the Delaware case, Gebhart v. Belton, the plaintiffs are Negro children of both elementary and high school age residing in New Castle County. They brought this action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enjoin enforcement of provisions in the state constitution and statutory code which require the segregation of Negroes and whites in public schools. Del. Const., Art. X, § 2; Del. Rev. Code § 2631 (1935). The Chancellor gave judgment for the plaintiffs and ordered their immediate admission to schools previously attended only by white children, on the ground that the Negro schools were inferior with respect to teacher training, pupil-teacher ratio, extracurricular activities, physical plant, and time and distance involved in travel. 87 A.2d 862. The Chancellor also found that segregation itself results in an inferior education for Negro children (see note 10, infra), but did not rest his decision on that ground. Id., at 865. The Chancellor''s decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Delaware, which intimated, however, that the defendants might be able to obtain a modification of the decree after equalization of the Negro and white schools had been accomplished. 91 A.2d 137, 152. The defendants, contending only that the Delaware courts had erred in ordering the immediate admission of the Negro plaintiffs to the white schools, applied to this Court for certiorari. The writ was granted, 344 U.S. 891. The plaintiffs, who were successful below, did not submit a cross-petition. [2] 344 U.S. 1, 141, 891. [3] 345 U.S. 972. The Attorney General of the United States participated both Terms as amicus curiae. [4] For a general study of the development of public education prior to the Amendment, see Butts and Cremin, A History of Education in American Culture (1953), Pts. I, II; Cubberley, Public Education in the United States (1934 ed.), cc. II-XII. School practices current at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment are described in Butts and Cremin, supra, at 269-275; Cubberley, supra, at 288-339, 408-431; Knight, Public Education in the South (1922), cc. VIII, IX. See also H. Ex. Doc. No. 315, 41st Cong., 2d Sess. (1871). Although the demand for free public schools followed substantially the same pattern in both the North and the South, the development in the South did not begin to gain momentum until about 1850, some twenty years after that in the North. The reasons for the somewhat slower development in the South (e. g., the rural character of the South and the different regional attitudes toward state assistance) are well explained in Cubberley, supra, at 408-423. In the country as a whole, but particularly in the South, the War virtually stopped all progress in public education. Id., at 427-428. The low status of Negro education in all sections of the country, both before and immediately after the War, is described in Beale, A History of Freedom of Teaching in American Schools (1941), 112-132, 175-195. Compulsory school attendance laws were not generally adopted until after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it was not until 1918 that such laws were in force in all the states. Cubberley, supra, at 563-565. [5] Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 67-72 (1873); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 307-308 (1880): "It ordains that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What is this but declaring that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color? The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable to the colored race,the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored,exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race." See also Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 318 (1880); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 344-345 (1880). [6] The doctrine apparently originated in Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass. 198, 206 (1850), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a state constitutional guarantee of equality. Segregation in Boston public schools was eliminated in 1855. Mass. Acts 1855, c. 256. But elsewhere in the North segregation in public education has persisted in some communities until recent years. It is apparent that such segregation has long been a nationwide problem, not merely one of sectional concern. [7] See also Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908). [8] In the Cumming case, Negro taxpayers sought an injunction requiring the defendant school board to discontinue the operation of a high school for white children until the board resumed operation of a high school for Negro children. Similarly, in the Gong Lum case, the plaintiff, a child of Chinese descent, contended only that state authorities had misapplied the doctrine by classifying him with Negro children and requiring him to attend a Negro school. [9] In the Kansas case, the court below found substantial equality as to all such factors. 98 F. Supp. 797, 798. In the South Carolina case, the court below found that the defendants were proceeding "promptly and in good faith to comply with the court''s decree." 103 F. Supp. 920, 921. In the Virginia case, the court below noted that the equalization program was already "afoot and progressing" (103 F. Supp. 337, 341); since then, we have been advised, in the Virginia Attorney General''s brief on reargument, that the program has now been completed. In the Delaware case, the court below similarly noted that the state''s equalization program was well under way. 91 A.2d 137, 149. [10] A similar finding was made in the Delaware case: "I conclude from the testimony that in our Delaware society, State-imposed segregation in education itself results in the Negro children, as a class, receiving educational opportunities which are substantially inferior to those available to white children otherwise similarly situated." 87 A.2d 862, 865. [11] K. B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), c. VI; Deutscher and Chein, The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion, 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, What are the Psychological Effects of Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities?, 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare (MacIver, ed., (1949), 44-48; Frazier, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944). [12] See Bolling v. Sharpe, post, p. 497, concerning the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [13] "4. Assuming it is decided that segregation in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment "(a) would a decree necessarily follow providing that, within the limits set by normal geographic school districting, Negro children should forthwith be admitted to schools of their choice, or "(b) may this Court, in the exercise of its equity powers, permit an effective gradual adjustment to be brought about from existing segregated systems to a system not based on color distinctions? "5. On the assumption on which questions 4 (a) and (b) are based, and assuming further that this Court will exercise its equity powers to the end described in question 4 (b), "(a) should this Court formulate detailed decrees in these cases; "(b) if so, what specific issues should the decrees reach; "(c) should this Court appoint a special master to hear evidence with a view to recommending specific terms for such decrees; "(d) should this Court remand to the courts of first instance with directions to frame decrees in these cases, and if so what general directions should the decrees of this Court include and what procedures should the courts of first instance follow in arriving at the specific terms of more detailed decrees?" [14] See Rule 42, Revised Rules of this Court (effective July 1, 1954).' description: Plain text representation of the opinion text, if available. Otherwise, empty string. updated_at: - allOf: - $ref: '#/components/schemas/DateTime' - example: '2023-08-02T22:56:54Z' citations: description: Array of possible citations for the case. Can be empty for unpublished opinions. type: array items: type: string example: - 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094 - 347 U.S. 483 - 74 S. Ct. 686 - 98 L. Ed. 2d 873 - 98 L. Ed. 873 - 53 Ohio Op. 326 - 38 A.L.R. 2d 1180 required: - case_name - jurisdiction_key - court Error: description: RFC9457 Problem Details type: object properties: status: type: integer example: 404 title: type: string instance: type: string type: type: string details: type: string errors: type: array items: type: string required: - status - title LawFeature: description: Describes whether a Law has a type of data, e.g., rich text content, formatted tables. type: object properties: name: type: string available: type: boolean Date: description: ISO Date with additional support for positive and negative Infinity values to represent ranges. type: string oneOf: - type: string format: date description: An ISO 8601 date string (e.g., "2025-04-17"). example: '2025-12-31' - type: string enum: - Infinity - -Infinity description: Represents positive infinity ("Infinity") or negative infinity ("-Infinity"). - type: 'null' description: Represents an unset or not applicable date. example: Infinity NullableDate: description: Nullable ISO 8601 Date type: - string - 'null' format: date example: '1776-04-01' DateTime: description: ISO 8601 DateTime type: string format: date-time parameters: jurisdictionKeyParam: name: jurisdiction_key in: path required: true schema: type: string example: FED description: Two to three letter Jurisdiction Key. `FED` for federal and generally, the postal abbreviation for most U.S. states and territories. keywordQueryParam: name: query in: query required: true schema: type: string example: apple description: One or more keywords to search by citationQueryParam: name: query in: query required: true schema: type: string example: 48 CFR 52.249-2 description: Bluebook legal citation for a statute, code, rule, regulation, or constitution queryTypeParam: name: type in: query required: false schema: type: string default: or enum: - or - and - phrase description: Search type. Default is 'or'. lawKeyParam: name: law_key in: path required: true schema: type: string example: FED-CFR description: A unique identifier for OpenLaws Laws. A `law_key` is a combination of a jurisdiction_key and an abbreviation of a law type joined by a '-' character. courtKeyParam: name: court_key in: path required: true schema: type: string example: scotus description: Unique identifier for a Court. See the /jurisdictions/{jurisdiction_key}/courts endpoint for possible values. withFederalParam: name: with_federal in: query required: false schema: type: boolean default: false description: When with_federal=`true` with a state jurisdiction_key argument, the Federal jurisdiction will also be included in the search scope. limitParam: name: limit in: query required: false schema: type: integer minimum: 1 default: 10 description: Maximum number of results to return pageParam: name: page in: query required: false schema: type: string description: Combines with `limit` to implement cursor-based pagination. This parameter sets the cursor to the next page of data. responses: okArrayOfLaws: description: Array of Laws content: application/json: schema: type: array items: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Law' okSingleDivision: description: Single Division content: application/json: schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Division' okArrayOfDivisions: description: Array of Divisions content: application/json: schema: type: array items: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Division' okArrayOfDivisionUpdates: description: Array of DivisionUpdates headers: link: description: Comma-separated list of RFC-8288 links. The URL will be enclosed by angle brackets. A semicolon will separate the URL from the relationship description. The relationship will be a key-value pair in the form of rel="{{relationship}}". The relationship will either be "first" or "next". This describes which page the related URL will fetch. schema: type: string example: ; rel="first", ; rel="next" current-page: description: Page ID for the current page schema: type: string example: eyJwYXRoIjoidGl0bGVfMTYuY2hhcHRlcl84Ny5zZWN0aW9uXzY4MDMiLCJpZCI6IjA2YTVlOTY2LWFkZTQtNDZiZC1hM2VlLTcxZGZmZjk0Zjk1ZiJ9 page-items: description: Number of items on each page. This matches the limit param. schema: type: integer example: 200 content: application/json: schema: type: array items: $ref: '#/components/schemas/DivisionUpdate' okArrayOfOpinions: description: Array of Opinions content: application/json: schema: type: array items: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Opinion' unauthorized: description: 401 Unauthorized. Please check your API Bearer token. content: application/json: schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Error' badRequest: description: 400 Bad Request. Please check your jurisdiction and citation format. content: application/json: schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Error' notFound: description: 404 Not Found content: application/json: schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Error' serverError: description: 500 Internal Server Error content: application/json: schema: $ref: '#/components/schemas/Error' security: - bearerAuth: [] x-ext-urls: {}