Whether the judgment of the Court of Appeals is `final'so as to permit review by way of appeal under 28 USC § 1254 (2).

Segregation of the races by common carriers is governed by the same principles as segregation in the public schools.

—a Negro passenger who had been required to change her seat on a bus in compliance with company rules imposed as a result of a South Carolina statute sued the bus company for damages.

A private person acts `under color of'a state statute or other law when he, like the official, in some way acts consciously pursuant to some law that gives him aid, comfort, or incentive

This appeal was taken under 28 USC § 1254 (2), which provides this Court with appellate jurisdiction at the behest of a party relying on a state statute held unconstitutional by a court of appeals.[2] There is authority, questioned but never put to rest, that § 1254 (2) is available only when review is sought of a final judgment.

—action of an apparently privately-owned bus company in segregating passengers, as required by state law, was action "under color of state law" for purposes of 42 USC § 1983 and 28 USC § 1343 (3).

Although 28 USC § 1254 (2), unlike § 1257 governing review of state court decisions, does not contain an express "finality" requirement, this Court has found such a requirement in the past.

When otherwise private persons or institutions are required by law to enforce the declared policy of the state against others, their enforcement of that policy is state action no less than would be enforcement of that policy by a uniformed officer.

Judge Rives relied on Henderson, Brown, Dawson, Holmes, and a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holding segregation on public buses unconstitutional

[CITATION] Parmelee Transp. Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co.

[BOOK] The Papers of Clarence Mitchell Jr., Volume V: The Struggle to Pass the 1957 …

[BOOK] Justice Deferred: Race and the Supreme Court