Jesse Helms' Lessons for Washington (The Washington Post)
Press
March 18, 1984

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board v. Davis Brief for Appellees, 1960. 789aae61-b09a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/e2ec2f22-69f1-404c-a179-2f0b4bc28ede/east-baton-rouge-parish-school-board-v-davis-brief-for-appellees. Accessed May 06, 2025.
Copied!
llmUh Btntm (Emirt rtf Kppmlz F oe the F ifth Circuit Isr th e No. 18,524 E ast B aton R ouge P arish School B oard and L loyd F unchess, Superintendent of said School Board, —versus— Appellants, Clifford E ugene Davis, J r., a minor, by Ms father and next friend, Clifford E ugene Davis, Sr., et al., Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRIEF FOR APPELLEES A. P. T ureaud A. M. T rudeau, J r. E rnest N. Morial 1821 Orleans Avenue New Orleans 16, Louisiana Constance B aker Motley T hurgood M arshall 10 Columbus Circle New York 19, N. Y. Attorneys for Appellees In th e lmtr& Bttitm (Emtrt rtf kppralB F oe the F ifth Circuit No. 18,524 E ast B aton B ouge P arish School B oard and L loyd F unchess, Superintendent of said School Board, —versus— Appellants, Clifford E ugene Davis, J r., a minor, by his father and next friend, Clifford E ugene Davis, Sr., et al., Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRIEF FOR APPELLEES Statement o f the Case Appellants’ Statement of the Case is supplemented by the following facts appearing in the record on appeal which appellees believe necessary to a full and proper statement of this case: On May 25, 1960, an injunction order was entered by the court below in this case. This injunctive order enjoins the appellant East Baton Bouge Parish School Board and the appellant Superinten 2 dent of Schools from “ requiring segregation of the races in any school under their supervision, and from engaging in any and all action which limits or affects the admission to, attendance in, or education of plaintiffs or any other Negro child similarly situated in schools under [their] jurisdiction, on the basis of race and color, from and after such time as may be necessary to make arrangements for admission of children to such schools on a racially non- discriminatory basis with all deliberate speed, as required by the decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, . . . ” (R. 171-172). The court below retained jurisdiction of this cause for the purpose of entering such further orders or granting such further relief as may be necessary to bring about compliance with its decree (R. 172). The foregoing order was entered approximately four years and three months after February 29, 1956, the date on which the complaint was filed (R. 2). The complaint alleged that various statutes of the State of Louisiana and the State Constitution required racial segregation in the public schools and prayed for injunctive relief against the enforcement of same (R. 9-14). No answer was ever filed by appellants during the four year period in which this case pended in the court below. The record shows that prior to the filing of the complaint, Negro citizens of East Baton Rouge Parish, including some of these appellees, petitioned the appellant Board and Superintendent to comply with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the School Segregation Cases (R. 58-59). This petition was presented to the Board at its meeting on November 10, 1955 (R. 55). At that meeting, the Board adopted the following resolution: 3 “Resolved, That the above-mentioned petition be filed in accordance with the Board’s resolution of August 25, 1955 as follows: ‘Resolved, That, as far as segregation is concerned, the Board will follow the State ,lawT on the subject’ ” (R. 56). Similar petitions to the Board were disposed of in the same fashion (R. 49). After the complaint was filed, appellees took the,deposi tions of Superintendent Funchess on April 24, 1956 (R. 45- 60). He testified as to the receipt of the various desegrega tion petitions addressed to the Board (R. 47-49), as to the failure of the Board to take any steps to comply with the Supreme Court’s decisions in the School Segregation Cases (R. 50-51), and testified as to his inability to make assign ments to schools on a nonraeial basis in view of the Board’s policies (R. 53). This deposition was before the court below on consideration of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (R. 167). Appellants took the depositions of ten of the fourteen appellees on various dates during April 1956 (R. 62-134). During the course of these depositions, appellants learned the identity of each of these adult plaintiffs and the identity of each of the minor plaintiffs attending schools under appellants’ jurisdiction on behalf of whom this suit is brought. On November 4, 1959, appellees .filed a motion for a sum mary judgment (R. 141). Five days later, appellants filed their opposition thereto (R. 146), In their opposition appellants called the attention of the court below to the fact that Louisiana had adopted a pupil placement law (Act 259, 1958, R.S. 17:101-110) which is similar to the one enacted by Alabama and held facially constitutional in the 4 ease of Shuttlesworth v. B’ham Bd. of Ed. (N. D. Ala. 1958), 162 F. Supp. 372, aff’d 358 U. S. 101 (E. 147). On the same date upon which appellants filed their oppo sition they also filed two motions to dismiss, a motion for a more definite statement (E. 148), and a motion to join the NAACP as an indispensable party (E. 145). One of the motions to dismiss sought dismissal on the ground that appellees failed to allege affirmatively that they have exhausted their administrative remedies pro vided by law (E. 150). The other motion to dismiss sought dismissal on the ground that this suit is, in effect, a suit against the State of Louisiana (E. 151). On March 14, 1960, appellants filed a supplemental oppo sition to motion for summary judgment (E. 161). By this document appellants claimed that they were operating under the Louisiana Pupil Placement Law and since the highest court of the State of Louisiana had not passed upon the constitutionality of the Louisiana Pupil Placement Law the court below should invoke the doctrine of abstention (E. 161-162). A third motion to dismiss filed on the same date made identical claims (E. 167). On March 14, 1960 the court below held a hearing on all pending motions which included the motions referred to above and other motions (E. 166). One of these other motions was a motion by a third party, Eobert 0. Me- Craine, Sr., a white parent of East Baton Eouge Parish, to intervene (E. 159-160, 152). This motion was subse quently denied (E. 171). Said intervenor also appeals to this Court (E. 177). Another motion heard on March 14, 1960 was the motion of appellants for a more definite state ment (E. 148, 164) which was also later denied (E. 170). 5 The motion to add N.A.A.C.P, as a party (R. 145) was also heard and similarly subsequently denied (R. 170). Appellants’ several motions to dismiss, although heard on March 14, 1960, were also subsequently denied on April 28, 1960 (R. 171). Appellees’ motion for summary judgment was also heard on March 14, 1960 but was not granted until April 28, 1960 (R. 170). The injunctive order recited above was not entered in this cause until May 25, 1960 (R. 171). The notice of appeal which the Board and Superinten dent filed was filed one day prior to the entry of this injunc tion on May 24, 1960 and appeals from the “ decree entered in the action” on April 28, 1960 (R. 173) which was the date on which the court below entered an order denying the various motions of appellants discussed above and granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment without more (R. 170-171). Intervenor’s notice of appeal was filed on May 26, 1960 (R. 177). In this brief appellees address themselves to appeal of the Board and the superintendent only. Appellees believe the intervenor’s appeal to be wholly without merit. More over, it appears that intervenor has not filed a separate brief or record on appeal. 6 ARGUMENT I. The validity and propriety of the injunctive order entered by the court below is sustained by prior decisions of this Court. The injunctive order of the court below is similar to the order entered by that same court in Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board (E. D. La. 1956), 138 F. Supp. 336, 337, and affirmed by this Court on appeal by the defendant school board in that case. Orleans Parish School Board v. Bush, 242 F. 2d 156 (5th Cir. 1957). Appellants’ contention that the court below erred in fail ing to consider the provisions of the Louisiana Pupil Placement Law (Act No. 259, 1958, L. E. S. 17:101-110) is patently frivolous and unsubstantial, same being precluded by prior recent decisions of this Court in similar public school desegregation cases in Florida. Mannings v. Board of Public Instruction of Hillsborough County, Florida, 277 F. 2d 370 (5th Cir. 1960); Gibson v. Board of Public In struction of Dade County, Fla., 272 F. 2d 763 (5th Cir., 1959); Holland v. Board of Public Instruction of Palm, Beach County, Fla., 258 F. 2d 730 (5th Cir. 1958); Gibson v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, Fla., 246 F. 2d 913 (5th Cir. 1957). The court below did not err, as appellants contend, in denying their motion to make the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N. A. A. C. P.) an indispensable party-plaintiff. The NAACP, an organiza tion, manifestly does not have standing to sue to enjoin appellants from operating their schools on a racially segre gated basis. Such a suit could only be brought by the 7 parents of the children affected by such unconstitutional action. Appellants took the depositions of ten of the fourteen appellees. These depositions, which are a part of the record on appeal (R. 62-140), show that appellants were fully apprised of all of the facts concerning this case. Moreover, appellants, themselves, as the proper school authorities of East Baton Rouge Parish, had within their own records whatever information they could possibly desire concerning the ages and school assignments of the minor plaintiffs. Consequently, no error was made below in denying motion for more definite statement of these facts. Finally, the validity and applicability of several other Louisiana statutes affecting school desegregation in that state, and to which appellants apparently refer when they contend that certain statutes should have been referred by the court below to a three-judge court, have been held un constitutional by a recent three-judge court decision of August 27, 1960 in Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board (E. D. La.), Civil No. 3630.1 And this Court’s decision in Orleans Parish School Board v. Bush, 268 F. 2d 78 (5th Cir. 1959) had already disposed of appellants’ contention regarding Act No. 319, 1956, L.S.A.-R.S. 17:341, also held unconstitutional by the three judge court. 1 The following Louisiana Statutes were held unconstitutional in that decision: Sections I, II and IV of Act 496 of I960, Section I and II providing for separate schools for Negro and white children, Section IV reserving to the Legislature exclusive power to classify schools; Section V of Act 496 of 1960 which gave the Governor power to supersede local school boards under court order to desegregate; Acts 256 of 1958 gave the Governor the right to close any school in the state and ordered to integrate; Act 495 o f 1960 gave the Governor the power to close all the schools in the state if one is integrated; Act 542 of 1960 gave the Governor the right to close any school threatened with violence or disorder; Act 333 of 1960; Act 319 of 1956; and Act 555 o f 1954, all of which provided for segregation o f the races in the public schools and withheld, under, penalty, free books, supplies, lunch and state funds from integrated schools. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment below must be affirmed, Respectfully submitted, A. P. T ukeattd A. M. T rudeau, J r. E rnest N. Morial 1821 Orleans Avenue New Orleans 16, Louisiana Constance Baker Motley T hurgood Marshall 10 Columbus Circle New York 19, N. Y. Attorneys for Appellees 38