[3][9] In April 1872, African American leaders announced that they had selected San Francisco attorney and former state assemblyman John W. Dwinelle to represent the interests of the black community,[10][3] after interviewing several candidates.

[8] In the summer of 1872, they organized meetings in San Francisco, Sacramento, Stockton, and Maryville, to raise money to pay for legal fees, and hired Dwinelle.

[3] On July 23, 1872, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that several African American parents had attempted to enroll their children in four different schools, but had been denied, and that John W. Dwinelle was planning legal proceedings to overturn these decisions.

[12] Principal Noah Flood refused to allow their daughter to enroll, advising Mrs. Ward that she should take Mary Frances to one of the "colored schools" as required by the San Francisco Board of Education, since she was black.

[8] In September 1872, Dwinelle applied for a writ of mandate, requesting the California Supreme Court to order Flood to admit Mary Frances Ward to the school.

[8] He submitted a written affidavit from Harriet Ward stating that the only reason Noah Flood had denied their request to enroll her daughter was due to her race and the school board policy.

[8] On November 22, 1872, the Wards' attorney, John W. Dwinelle appealed to the California Supreme Court, arguing that the existing school code violated both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

[12] Echoing Charles Sumner's argument in Roberts v. City of Boston in 1850, Dwinelle contended that forcing black schoolchildren to attend separate schools marked them as "inferior" in the eyes of the rest of society, denying them equal protection under the law.

[11] Eighteen months later, the California Supreme Court ruled against Ward, citing both the Slaughter-House Cases and Roberts v. City of Boston as precedent.

[13] With regard to equal protection, the court ruled in Ward v. Flood that the state was not violating any law, as long as it provided similar educational opportunities to all its citizens.

[11] Quoting from Roberts v. City of Boston, the court maintained that having separate schools was not the reason for the "odious caste distinctions" confronting black children.

[15] By 1880, the California State Legislature temporarily removed all references to race in the school code, but exclusion and segregation continued in some districts including San Francisco, particularly against families of Chinese immigrants.