Copeland v. Martinez Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant

    No. 18,641

In the

United Stotes Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

ST. JOHN DIXON, ET AL.,

versus
Appellants,

ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,
Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
For the Middle District of Alabama

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

MacDonald Gallion
Attorney General of Alabama

Robert P. Bradley 
Legal Adviser to 
Governor John Patterson

Gordon Madison 
Assistant Attorney General 
of Alabama
State Capitol 

Montgomery 4, Alabama
Attorneys for Appellees



In the

United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 18,641
ST. JOHN DIXON, ET AL.,

Appellants,
versus

ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,
Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 
For the Middle District of Alabama

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Alabama State College, Montgomery, Alabama, is a state 
institution for Negroes. It is under the supervision and con­
trol of the Alabama State Board of Education.

Appellants were Negro students attending the college. 
Upon entrance they agreed in writing to abide by college 
policies and regulations relating to conduct, attendance and 
to dismissal (R.'pp. 84, 85). The rules provide that pupils 
shall conduct themselves in a manner becoming future teach­
ers, must, obey the president and faculty. Acts of insub­
ordination, defiance of authority, and conduct prejudicial 
to discipline and the welfare of the school constitute grounds 
for suspension or expulsion from schools (R. pp. 25, 28, 85, 
219). The same rules apply to both white and Negro state 
teachers colleges (R. p. 195).

Appellants engaged in conduct which resulted in their 
expulsion from college. The particular acts are set forth in 
full in the District Court’s opinion and need not be repeated 
here. The facts are not disputed, and from these facts the 
Court held that the expulsions were proper. It was ruled 
that the conduct of Appellants calculated to provoke and



2

did provoke discord, disorder, disturbance, and disruption 
on the campus .of the college and in the college classrooms, 
generally; that Appellants persisted after warning by the 
president of the college and what they did was flagrantly in 
violation of the college rules and regulations and conduct 
unbecoming a student or future teacher in the schools (R.
p. 222).

The above findings are fully supported by the evidence 
(Rule 52, Federal Rules Civil Procedure). Absolutely no 
arbitrary action in expelling the Appellants is shown, but 
to the contrary the Court found it to be necessary (R. p. 
223).

JURISDICTION

As to the Court’s jurisdiction of this action, the following 
by Judge Gibson in Hteier v. New York State Education 
Commissioner, 271 F.2d 13, may be applicable.

“ Education is a field of life reserved to the individual 
states.; The only restriction the Federal Government 
imposes is that in their educational program no state 
may discriminate against an individual because of race, 
color, or creed.

“As so well stated by Judge Wvzanski in Cranney v. 
Trustees of Iloston University, D. 0., 139 F. Supp. 139, 
to expand the Civil Rights Statute so as to embrace 
every constitutional claim such as here made would in 
fact bring within the initial jurisdiction of the United 
States District Courts that vast array of controversies 
which have heretofore been raised in state tribunals by 
challenges founded upon the 14th Amendment to the 
United States Constitution. It would be arrogating to 
United States District Courts that, which is purely a 
State Court function. Conceivably every State College 
student, upon dismissal from such college, could rush 
to a Federal Judge seeking review of the dismissal.

“ It is contrary to the Federal nature of our system —  
contrary to the concept of the relative places of State 
and Federal Courts.



3

“Whether or not we would have acted as did the Ad­
ministrator of Brooklyn- College in dismissing- the plain­
tiff matters not. For a Federal District Court to take 
jurisdiction of a case such as this would lead to con­
fusion and chaos in the entire field of jurisprudence in 
the states and in the United States.”

ARGUMENT

Appellants have no absolute right to attend Alabama State 
College. Their right is conditioned upon abiding by the rules 
of the college. The privilege of attending the college as a 
student comes not from Federal sources, but is given by the 
State. Waugh v. Board of Trustees-, etc., 237 U.S. 589; Ham­
ilton, et al,. v, Regents of the University of California, 293 
U. S. 243.

The most that any court has ever held is that a student is 
protected against arbitrary action. Here the expulsions were 
necessary; necessary action is not arbitrary action.

If this case is viewed in its proper light, Appellants seek 
by this suit to determine the validity of “ sit-in” and other 
demonstrations, and service to them at public lunch counters. 
This, however, was disposed of by the following from the 
Court’s opinion:

“The pertinent observations, findings and conclusions 
of this Court, as herein recited, are not to be construed 
as either an approval or disapproval of the so-called 
tsit-in’ demonstrations; the legality of such actions is not 
here involved. Nor is anything stated or concluded here­
in to he construed as an approval or condonation of the 
operation of publicly owned and maintained lunch 
rooms where there is practiced discrimination solely on 
the basis of race in violation of the settled law in Der- 
rington, et al. v. Plummer, et al., (CCA 5, 1956), 240 
F.2d 922, cert. den. 353 U.S. 924; City of Crensboro, 
et al., v. Simkins, et ah, 246 F.2d 425; and Department of 
Conservation and Development etc., et al., v. Tate, et ah, 
231 F.2d 615,”

Appellants have no constitutional rights to a hearing be­
fore dismissal as so well pointed out by the District Court.



4

The Appellants, Negroes, have been expelled for good 
cause from a Negro college, just as white students have been 
expelled for good cause from white colleges.

The case should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

MaeDonald Gallion 
Attorney General 
State of Alabama

Robert P. Bradley 
Legal Adviser to
Governor John Patterson

Gordon
Assistant Attorney General 
State of Alabama
State Capitol 
Montgomery 4, Alabama

Attorneys for Appellees

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, , Gordon Madison, one of the attorneys of recard for
Appellees, hereby certify that I have on this the ... day
of February, 1961, mailed copies of the foregoing brief to 
Appellants’ attorneys, Fred D. Gray, 34 North Perry Street, 
Montgomery, Alabama, and Thurgood Marshall, Jack Green­
berg, and Derrick A. Bell, Jr., all of 10 Columbus Circle, 
New York, New York.