創設於1909年的全國有色人種促進協會（NAACP）對於本訴訟案的演變早已根據長期的策略而有所準備。全國有色人種促進協會是美國最早成立的民間民權團體之一，致力於促進並改善美國黑人的生活條件，替黑人爭取權利。早在1935年，全國有色人種促進協會就已開始在法院上攻擊種族隔離措施，並且贏了其中幾個案子，其中特別可歸功於查理斯·漢彌爾頓·休士頓（英语：Charles Hamilton Houston）及瑟古德·馬歇爾共同所設計的一套訴訟策略。這套策略主要有賴於馬歇爾與全國各地社區與個人建立緊密合作，使得全國有色人種促進協會後來在幾次法學院、專業學校、中小學的種族隔離教育訴訟中都獲勝訴[11]。在大學、法學院及專業學校的訴訟案中，全國有色人種促進協會能夠勝訴的主要原因是因為南方各州的大學大部分都只給白人學生就讀[12]，黑人學生和白人學生相比顯著缺乏了接受高等教育的機會，因此法院無法依「隔離但平等」的原則判決全國有色人種促進協會敗訴；而在中小學中則是因為師資與設備等因素黑人學校有顯著的缺乏而獲得勝訴。這些勝訴迫使州政府將大學種族隔離的措施廢除，以及改善了中小學的設備及師資薪水。然而從整個南方來看，種族隔離學校的數量驚人，全國有色人種促進協會在訴訟上的勝利仍然改變不了黑人學生明顯缺乏公立教育資源的事實。全國有色人種促進協會的策略便是利用這些先前的勝訴，在改善黑人的就學權利的同時，逐步建構一套理論體系，藉以在將來的訴訟案中能夠說服最高法院完全廢除（而非部分領域廢除）種族隔離措施。布朗案便是全國有色人種促進協會策略之下的第一個大勝利。
訴願提交後的幾個月，教育當局沒有做出任何回應，不滿升到最高點，由於學生長期累積的不滿，加上當地黑人有抵制種族隔離措施的經驗，罷課行動於是展開。當時十六歲的芭芭拉·羅斯·約翰斯（英语：Barbara Rose Johns）及其他的學生領導人在羅伯特·魯薩·摩頓高中組織了一個共450個黑人學生參與的罷課運動，一直持續了十天，直到學生們尋求全國有色人種促進協會的法律諮詢，全國有色人種促進協會決定提供協助提出訴訟為止，罷課活動才告結束。[9]
霍華德高中的許多黑人學生必須搭車近一小時才能到達學校，校舍相當擁擠且座落於工業區，缺乏適合的教育環境，師資不良且課程缺乏，對於職業訓練課程有興趣的學生還必須自行走路離校修習。他們自己的社區中有設備非常優良的學校，卻基於種族的因素不能就讀。八位學生家長們基於全國有色人種促進協會的法律諮詢向教育提出訴願未果之後，1951年在全國有色人種促進協會的律師路易斯·瑞丁（英语：Louis L. Redding）協助下提出了訴訟。[9]
和其他布朗案不同的是，本案中的法官柯林·賽茲（英语：Collins J. Seitz）判決黑人學生——基於種族隔離所造成的實質傷害，以及兩間學校上確實存在有「隔離但不平等」的差異——得以立即進入白人學校就讀，也就是「隔離但平等」的原則在這裡並不適用。教育當局不滿此判決而提出上訴至最高法院，因此成為後來布朗案的一部份。[9]
奧利弗·布朗（英语：Oliver Brown (civil rights)）是琳達·布朗的父親，同時也是一位當地服務於聖大非鐵路的焊工，另外也是當地教堂的助理牧師[20]。最初奧利弗·布朗與托皮卡當地的律師威廉·艾弗雷特·格倫討論「隔離但平等」的種族隔離教育措施，威廉·艾弗雷特·格倫因此向他推薦當地的全國有色人種促進協會也許可以幫助他，而他隨後則被全國有色人種促進協會的律師同時也是他的兒時好友查理斯·史考特說服提出救濟。於是，在初步的救濟──也就是訴願──失敗之後，他們開始著手提起訴訟。[19]
這樣子的現象一直到1950年才有些不同。當地的一位理髮店擁有者賈德納·畢沙帶領著十七位黑人學生前往一所新的白人學校約翰·菲立普·索沙高中，要求校方許可這幾位學生進入校園，並且接受他們的入學註冊。雖然這所學校設備優良，地幅廣大，明顯可以再收好幾名學生，但校方基於種族因素而拒絕。賈德納·畢沙隨後接觸律師查理斯·漢彌爾頓·休士頓（英语：Charles Hamilton Houston）尋求協助，查理斯·漢彌爾頓·休士頓決定要求教育當局提供黑人學校平等的設施，過程中並未與全國有色人種促進協會有任何接觸。1950年在訴訟準備的過程中，查理斯·漢彌爾頓·休士頓的心臟疾病發作，健康狀況惡化，因此把這件案子託付給他的同事兼好友詹姆士·納布瑞特（英语：James Nabrit），詹姆士·納布瑞特後來決定將目標改變，從原本要求提供平等的設施轉為攻擊種族隔離本身的法律而提起訴訟。[9]
布朗案同時也招來了一些自由派作家的批評，有些人認為首席大法官厄爾·沃倫依賴心理學知識確立種族隔離帶給黑人學童傷害是不必要的。舉例來說，德魯·戴茲（英语：Drew S. Days）寫道：
過去我們早已經建立一套衡量種族分類法律是否違憲的方法，這些方法並沒有使用任何心理上的傷害或者是社會科學實證的證據作為衡量基準。這樣的方法是建立在平林訴合眾國案（英语：Hirabayashi v. United States）[63]中所指出的原則：『對於所有自由人來說，僅僅因為祖先不同而有差別待遇，這樣的差別待遇就其本質而言是可憎的，因為身為自由人的可貴之處就在於他與其他人相比時皆有平等原則的適用，以作為他存在的前提。』[64]
^平等權的依據為美國憲法第十四修正案第一項：「任何人，凡在合眾國出生或歸化合眾國並受其管轄者，均為合眾國及所居住之州的公民。任何州不得制定或執行任何剝奪合眾國公民特權或豁免權的法律；任何州亦不得未經正當法律程序而剝奪任何人的生命、自由或財產；亦不得對任何在其管轄下的人，拒絕給予平等的法律保護。」其中的「不得對任何在其管轄下的人，拒絕給予平等的法律保護。」即為美國憲法的平等權條款（equal protection clause），保障公民在法律上被平等對待，這也就是美國憲法中平等權的規範由來。原文請參考LII/United States Constitution/Amendment XIV. [2008-06-09]. （原始内容存档于2009-11-24）.
^Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...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."
^Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...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. 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. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout 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."
^Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...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."
^Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...In Sweatt v. Painter, 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, 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.’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.'"
^Brown v. Board of Education, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.483 (1954): "...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."
^因為第十四條修正案中，"nor deny...the equal protection of law."的主詞是 "State"，並沒有提到"United States" 或 "Federal"，因此平等權只有針對州規範。
^Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.497 (1954): "...Segregation in public education is not reasonably related to any proper governmental objective, and thus it imposes on Negro children of the District of Columbia a burden that constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of their liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause."
^Bolling v. Sharpe, 347（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 347）U.S.497 (1954): "...In view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states from maintaining racially segregated public schools, it would be unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government."
^Brown v. Board of Education, 349（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 349）U.S.294 (1955): "...Because these cases arose under different local conditions and their disposition will involve a variety of local problems, we requested further argument on the question of relief.FN2 In view of the nationwide importance of the decision, we invited the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorneys General of all states requiring or permitting racial discrimination in public education to present their views on that question. The parties, the United States, and the States of Florida, North Carolina, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Texas filed briefs and participated in the oral argument."
^Brown v. Board of Education, 349（英语：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 349）U.S.294 (1955): "...To effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with the constitutional principles set forth in our May 17, 1954, decision."
^Justice William O. Douglas wrote: “In the original conference there were only four who voted that segregation in the public schools was unconstitutional. Those four were Black, Burton, Minton, and myself.”Bernard Schwartz. Decision: How the Supreme Court Decides Cases, 頁 96. (Oxford 1996). [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2020-10-30） （英语）.; Likewise, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: “I have no doubt that if the segregation cases had reached decision last term, there would have been four dissenters — Vinson, Reed, Jackson, and Clark.” Id. Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary had a different view, calling Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to "smear the reputation of a great justice." See Alan Dershowitz（英语：Alan Dershowitz） at Huffington Post. Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist. 2005-09-25 [2008-05-30]. （原始内容存档于2018-09-03） （英语）. See also Felix Frankfurter on the death of Justice Vinson.
Jeremy Atack, Peter Passell, A New Economic View of American History: From Colonial Times to 1940 2., New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, ISBN 0-393-96315-2
Derrick A. Bell, Silent Covenants. Brown V. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 0-19-517272-8
Daniel Moosbrugger, Die amerikanische Bürgerrechtsbewegung, Stuttgart: ibidem, 2004, ISBN 3-89821-415-X
Charles J. Ogletree, All Deliberate Speed. Reflections on the First Half Century of Brown V. Board of Education, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, ISBN 0-393-05897-2
