This case involves allegations of racial discrimination against a white school teacher who was refused service at a store in Mississippi and subsequently arrested for vagrancy. The Supreme Court found that the petitioner can claim a violation of her equal protection rights under § 1983 if she can prove that the store refused to serve her due to a state-enforced custom of racial segregation in Hattiesburg restaurants. Private parties can be held liable under § 1983 for conspiring with state officials to discriminate against someone based on their race. The lower court erred in granting summary judgment because the respondent did not show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The state action issue in this case is whether Kress's refusal of service due to a state-enforced custom of segregation is sufficient state action to prove a violation of the petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment rights. The petitioner is entitled to a new trial on the substantive count of her complaint if she can demonstrate the existence of a state-enforced custom of segregating races in public eating places in Hattiesburg at the time of the incident in question and that Kress' refusal to serve her was motivated by that state-enforced custom.

Sandra Adickes sued S. H. Kress & Co. for violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that a police officer and Kress employees conspired to deprive her of her constitutional rights, and that Kress refused to serve her while she was with Black people. The trial judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Kress on the conspiracy allegation and directed a verdict in favor of Kress on the custom allegation, as there was enough evidence to require a jury trial. The issue of whether a conspiracy exists or not is a factual issue that should be decided by a jury, not a trial judge. Trial by affidavit is not a substitute for trial by jury, which has long been a symbol of fair justice. Only when witnesses are present and subject to cross-examination can their credibility and the weight of their testimony be assessed.

This legal case discusses the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the relevance of the concept of "custom" in determining violations of civil rights under state law. The case argues that a custom need not be backed by formal laws to be actionable under § 1983. The case also highlights the relationship between § 1983 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, arguing that the meaning of "under color of...custom" in the 1866 Act is relevant to the interpretation of that phrase in § 1983. The case concludes that neither § 1 of the 1871 Act nor its successor, § 1983, was intended to be conditioned by the need for "state" involvement.

The case involves a petitioner who claims that the respondent violated her right to equal protection under the law by denying her service in their restaurant due to racial discrimination. The Court agrees that there was state action in the form of a conspiracy between the respondent and local police to discriminate against her. The case now focuses on whether Mississippi statutes demonstrate a state policy of encouraging and supporting restaurant segregation, which would make respondent's alleged privately chosen segregation unconstitutional state action. The petitioner argues that Miss. Code Ann. § 2046.5 (1956) allowed discrimination for racial or any other reasons and authorized the use of police power to enforce it, violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The case questions the constitutionality of § 2046.5 and whether it violates the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing discrimination based on race.