Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Affirm
Public Court Documents
July 3, 1978
8 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Bolden v. Mobile Hardbacks and Appendices. Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion to Affirm, 1978. bcab37eb-cdcd-ef11-b8e8-7c1e520b5bae. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0d924d29-598e-48d3-bf4a-4c58eccb8826/supplemental-brief-in-support-of-motion-to-affirm. Accessed December 06, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE
Supreme Couet of the United States
October Term, 1978
No. 77-1844
City oF MoBILE, ALABAMA, et al.,
Appellants,
V.
Wey L. BoLbEN, et al.,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AFFIRM
Epwarp STILL
601 Title Building
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
J. U. BLACKSHER
Larry MENEFFEE
1407 Davis Avenue
Mobile, Alabama 36603
JACK (GREENBERG
Eric SCHENAPPER
Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
Counsel for Appellees
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1978
No. 77-1844
City or MoBILE, ALABAMA, et al.,
Appellants,
V.
WiLey L. BoLpEN, et al.,
Appellees.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AFFIRM
Appellees submit this supplemental brief with regard to
a new issue first raised by appellants’ Opposition to Motion
to Affirm: whether the dilution rule of White v. Regester,
412 U.S. 755 (1973), should be applied to city elections.
Whatever the merits of that question, it simply is not
presented by the instant case. The decision of the Fifth
Circuit rests, not on a finding of dilution in violation of
White, but on a finding of intentional discrimination in
violation of Gomullion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 399 (1960).
The nature of the opinion below was detailed in our Motion
to Affirm, pp. 8-14, and appellants’ in their Opposition do
not dispute our characterization of the Fifth Circuit’s de-
cision. Accordingly even if this Court were to hold White
inapplicable to city elections, that would not require or per-
mit reversal of the decision below.
2
This new contention, moreover, was never raised by ap-
pellants in the extensive litigation in the District Court
and Court of Appeals, and is not included in the Jurisdie-
tional Statement. Although the meaning and application of
White was repeatedly and exhaustively briefed below, at
no time prior to the filing of their Opposition to Motion to
Affirm did appellants contend that White should not be
applied to city elections. In support of this new contention
appellants offer regarding the role of elected city officials
a variety of factual assertions which were not presented
to or addressed by the courts below and on which the
record in this case is silent. Since this issue is not a juris-
dictional one, and since appellants failed to raise or pre-
serve it below, it is not properly before this Court. Mt.
Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278-81
(1977).
For the above reasons the judgment of the Court of Ap-
peals should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
Epwarp StiLL
601 Title Building
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
J. U. BLACKSHER
LARRY MENEFFEE
1407 Davis Avenue
Mobile, Alabama 36603
JACK GREENBERG
Eric ScHNAPPER
Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
Counsel for Appellees
RESS SEE SS INC - P S — iN) of
Cc SE
GR 219